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. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Actually, what you said was that German equipment "...was best in moust things in WW2", my reply was part of a list of many cases where German equipment was inferior.

    In any case whilst the later Type XXIs (I think, I'm sure someone will correct me) were probably the best of the wartime types, I'm not sure how well the Type VIIs which the U-boat arm was equipped for the majority of the war compare with their USN contemporaries either. A quick check seems to indicate that the USN submarines generally seem to have been larger, faster and with greater range (And I seem to recall mentioned elsewhere on this forum that crew accomodation was much more comfortable) than the type VII which equipped the Uboat fleet for the vast majority of the war.
     
  2. Hoosier phpbb3

    Hoosier phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bloomington, Indiana USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Simon nailed it.
    Type VII and IX U-boats were no match for the comfort of the USN Gato-class subs. They were much roomier and even incorporated air-conditioning if I recall.
    No question the German Type XXI boats revolutionized sub-design and were the basis for all post-war submarine designs...
    -------------------------------
    To those that thought Destroyers and DEs (destroyer escorts) performed only mundane escort and anti-sub duties... ESPECIALLY Gunter_Viezenz:
    "Taffy 3" ring a bell?
    They accounted themselves with incredible distinction in the Battle of Leyte Gulf off the coast of Samar on October 25, 1944. "Taffy 3" took on an overwhelmingly superior Japanese battle group with 4 battleships, 6 heavy crusiers, 2 light crusiers and 11 destroyers... and won the day, saving the imperiled landings in the Philippines.
    "Taffy 3" consisted of 6 escort carriers, 3 destroyers and 4 destroyer-escorts. The Japanese withdrew thinking they were facing a far more superior force than they actually were. It was truly an incredible accomplishment.

    US destroyers on Picket-Duty" were specially targeted by kamikazes in the late-Pacific campaigns. They were also known to slug it out with shore batteries during island invasions, creeping-in as close to shore as possible to bring direct-fire on enemy strongpoints. These little ships and their crews were fearless.

    Tim
     
  3. me262 phpbb3

    me262 phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Porter,TX
    via TanksinWW2
    S-boots were better than the MTB and the PT
     
  4. Hoosier phpbb3

    Hoosier phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bloomington, Indiana USA
    via TanksinWW2
    sinissa:
    The Fletcher-class of USN Destroyers were some of the finest of their kind to see action in the entire war. The Iowa-class battleships, and Essex-Class carriers also come to mind...
    Second-rate? I think not.

    Tim
     
  5. Hoosier phpbb3

    Hoosier phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bloomington, Indiana USA
    via TanksinWW2
    me262:
    No arguement from me.
    Keep in mind though, the S-class boats were a MUCH-larger class of torpedo-boat than MTBs or PTs. (Kinda-like comparing apples and coconuts in my mind.)
    PTs were shallow-draft, and made of marine plywood. Economy of scale being what it was... the little MTBs and PTs offered much "bang" for the buck.

    Tim
     
  6. jeaguer

    jeaguer New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Sydney Australia
    via TanksinWW2
    .

    Still all the above argument skirt the critical point ,
    the German forces had the best looking uniforms , :D :D :D

    As for the original point
    Why the Germans did not copy the T-34 and disregarding the fact that they did with the panther ,
    the germans were short of resources particularly steel ,every now and again there were animated discussions about steel quota between the various branch of the economy and armed forces , each trying to get a bit more ,
    in this climate of relative scarcity it made sens to emphasize quality ,
    it use the German advantage in top engineering ,virtually individual assembly workshops ,
    cost less men at the pointy end , has a higher success rate , save on transport ...etc

    on the soviet side steel supply is not so bad ,
    the Cheliabinsk factories are integrated mass factories suited for churning out long identical series using semi qualified labor ,
    they are aware they will have to attack a lot , which means lot of losses ,
    from the summer of 41 it's a desperate scramble to refill the depleted tank regiments
    from the winter of 42 , the strategy of multiple frontal attacks is adopted , it require a lot of equipment to break through then ,more equipment to exploit the breach ,
    the maintenance and reliability is bad , it doesn't matter more tanks keep coming .
    Keeping the pressure is done by moving wave of armor into the breach and fanning out .
    By mid 44 , after such a report ,German officers inspecting the damage would be gasping at the sight of a valley covered by soviet tanks rolling like a river toward Chistina , a whole tank army on the move
    never Germany could afford or even conceive of something like this

    .
     
  7. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Where i sayed that?
     
  8. Hoosier phpbb3

    Hoosier phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bloomington, Indiana USA
    via TanksinWW2
    sinissa:
    Perhaps I misunderstood your post... I took it to mean you agreed Gato-class subs were tops, but not USN battleships, carriers or destroyers.
    If I got that wrong, please excuse me.
    :wink:

    Tim
     
  9. Ricky phpbb3

    Ricky phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Why do we always end up with these 'German equipment was the best' debates...?

    Germany had some good equipment, and in some fields (and at some times) had arguably the best. But then if you replace 'Germany' with any other country majorly involved in WW2 (with the possible exception of China) you can make exactly the same statement.

    I did start typing out a long list, but got bored. :grin:
     
  10. me262 phpbb3

    me262 phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Porter,TX
    via TanksinWW2
    before that i have a question:
    why we like them germany's weapons?
    anyone care to explain this
     
  11. Hoosier phpbb3

    Hoosier phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bloomington, Indiana USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Hmmm.
    Much of the bias is of a visceral nature I think. The Germans favored designs that were the biggest, and most complex solutions to any given problem.

    The MG34/42 with it's extremely high rate of fire.

    The Panther tank with that long-barreled 75mm main-gun... it just looks cool.

    The much feared and respected Eighty-eight... whether as artillery, flak or the main-gun of the Tiger tank.

    The Stuka diving with bent wings and sirens howling.

    The Me262... first jet to see combat, and armed with four 30mm cannon. It looks like a shark with wings. (Attacking bombers beware!)

    The Volkswagon Beetle... and Kubelwagon/"Thing." In my country we bought the durn things by the millions! (Post-war of course.)

    That distinctive German helmet... we Americans liked it so much we adopted it as our own.

    Does that help?

    Tim
     
  12. me262 phpbb3

    me262 phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Porter,TX
    via TanksinWW2
    thanks tim!!!! :smok: :smok: :smok: :smok: :smok: :p
     
  13. gtblackwell

    gtblackwell Well-Known Member Patron  

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,108
    Likes Received:
    554
    Location:
    Auburn, Alabama, US
    Hate to interrupt the plethora of OT topics and apologies from mentioning tanks. This short article is already covered a thousand times but the graphic descriptions of the Tiger 1 &2 main gun abilities never cease to amaze me. They had many faults and shortcomings so will not repeat them but if you were in ANY allied tank the thought that you may be hit by the projectile from either must have been terrifying, especially the 88x71.

    The size comparison is more than noteworthy.

    SAME SIZE DIFFERENT ROUND - The Tiger Collection
     
  14. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,588
    Likes Received:
    1,081
    Location:
    Michigan
    An interesting bit of thread necromancy.
    Will hold my comments for now (especially since fact checking the first one I intended to make proved it was wrong).
     

Share This Page