Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 25th, 2012, 12:37 AM   #21

Bish's Avatar
Pain in the butt
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk.
Posts: 7,882

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diced View Post
I have visited the tank museum in Munster, Germany. That Tiger II sure was impressive, I had seen thousands of pictures and documentaries however never did it quite capture the majestic appearance of the Tiger II. So, perhaps Germany did have a better chance if they concentrated on the Panzer IV, however I'm glad they did not for selfish reasons :P

Also, the panzer IV was outclassed by the T-34 and equal to the American and British Shermans. So if they concentrated on one tank design it should have been the Panther or Panzer V. However this tank had many problems during its initial deployment.
As much as i like the Panther and think it was by far the best tank of the war, i think Germany shopuld have concentrated production on the long barreled Pz IV. They could have built more of these than Panthers and they were capable of taking on the T-34.
Bish is offline  
Remove Ads
Old June 25th, 2012, 12:50 AM   #22

Diced's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Groningen, Netherlands
Posts: 221

Well I think they sort of did concentrate on vast quantities by creating the Sturmgeschütz or STUG combat vehicles. Which were essentially tanks without the rotating turret in order to be able to upgrade the guns on an older chasis. Also, part of Germany's Blitzkrieg would have to be the use of heavy tanks as a spearhead to punch holes in the enemy lines where the lighter tanks would defend the gap. So they still needed the heavier Panther's and Tiger's to be able to use this tactic. I don't know if this tactic would still have been viable had they abandoned the production of the heavier tanks.
Diced is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 01:13 AM   #23

Bish's Avatar
Pain in the butt
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk.
Posts: 7,882

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diced View Post
Well I think they sort of did concentrate on vast quantities by creating the Sturmgeschütz or STUG combat vehicles. Which were essentially tanks without the rotating turret in order to be able to upgrade the guns on an older chasis. Also, part of Germany's Blitzkrieg would have to be the use of heavy tanks as a spearhead to punch holes in the enemy lines where the lighter tanks would defend the gap. So they still needed the heavier Panther's and Tiger's to be able to use this tactic. I don't know if this tactic would still have been viable had they abandoned the production of the heavier tanks.
I don't see why not. It had worked fine without Heavies in 1940. Once it became apparent that one gun could performe the roles envisaged for the tank, then production should have stuck to that one tank, while clerly designing and perfecting a tank for the future. The Tiger II more so than the Tiger I was just a symbol of Hitlers desire for big statments.
Bish is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 02:02 AM   #24

Diced's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Groningen, Netherlands
Posts: 221

Ah but you forget that in 1940 the enemy was using different materials and tactics as well. The Sherman and T-34's did not exist and the although the French tanks, for example, were superior they were not used properly tactically and the enemies of Nazi-Germany certainly were unfamiliar with Blitzkrieg tactics.
Diced is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 02:42 AM   #25

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 6,297

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diced View Post
Ah but you forget that in 1940 the enemy was using different materials and tactics as well. The Sherman and T-34's did not exist and the although the French tanks, for example, were superior they were not used properly tactically and the enemies of Nazi-Germany certainly were unfamiliar with Blitzkrieg tactics.
I could be wrong, but didn't the Red Army begin production of the T-34 for the first time in 1940? I know it was there when the Germans launched Barbarossa and were horrified to find that it was even better protected then the Char B1.
Sam-Nary is online now  
Old June 25th, 2012, 02:46 AM   #26

Diced's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Groningen, Netherlands
Posts: 221

yep, that's the start of the production, however they weren't encountered by Germans untill june 1941.

Prior to the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa"]invasion of the Soviet Union[/ame] during [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II"]World War II[/ame], the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmacht"]German armed forces[/ame] were not aware of two newly developed Soviet tanks, the T-34 and [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliment_Voroshilov_tank"]KV[/ame]. As a result they were surprised when they met them in combat in June 1941. German encounter of Soviet T-34 and KV tanks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This would be why the Germans had to rush the deployment of their Panther tanks and increase production of the Tiger. The only thing they had to repel the T-34's when they encountered them initially was the Flak-88.

*edit*

I see your point now. They did exist, only the Germans weren't aware of it. So you're right in your analysis, sorry

Last edited by Diced; June 25th, 2012 at 03:03 AM.
Diced is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 02:47 AM   #27

Bish's Avatar
Pain in the butt
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk.
Posts: 7,882

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diced View Post
Ah but you forget that in 1940 the enemy was using different materials and tactics as well. The Sherman and T-34's did not exist and the although the French tanks, for example, were superior they were not used properly tactically and the enemies of Nazi-Germany certainly were unfamiliar with Blitzkrieg tactics.
I see your point in that given the Allies superiority in numbers the German heavy tanks had the advantage one on one. But i think the Pz IV would have still been good enough to spearhead the attack, and there would have been more of them. But its a tough call. The best of both worlds would have been to ditch the Tigers and Pz IV's and just build Panthers.

But i think either way, German production would never have been enough.
Bish is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 02:53 AM   #28

Diced's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Groningen, Netherlands
Posts: 221

Yes, I'm not disagreeing with you, however I do feel that the Panzer IV would have made the use of Blitzkrieg less effective and usable as a military tactic.

Whether they would have been able to produce enough panthers had they concentrated on that to turn the war will always be a question. The air superiority of the allies was the biggest problem for the Germans and I don't think any tank-design could effectively nullify this factor.
Diced is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 02:59 AM   #29

Bish's Avatar
Pain in the butt
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk.
Posts: 7,882

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diced View Post
Yes, I'm not disagreeing with you, however I do feel that the Panzer IV would have made the use of Blitzkrieg less effective and usable as a military tactic.

Whether they would have been able to produce enough panthers had they concentrated on that to turn the war will always be a question. The air superiority of the allies was the biggest problem for the Germans and I don't think any tank-design could effectively nullify this factor.
The Pz IV issue is deffinatly up for debate, i am not 100% certain myself. By the end of 44 it had gone as far as it could go. In fact,i think it had gone further than it should, with the long barreled gun and extra armour putting a great strain on the suspension. The only thing i find in its favour is that they can build more of them, and it is equal to what the western allies had.

But ye, air superiority would have nullfied anything the Germans came up with in regards armour.
Bish is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 05:27 AM   #30
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 790

I read where American engineers blew most of the bridges and slowed down and funneled the Germans and allied air finished the forward movement.
Chapter 14-THE ARDENNES: BATTLE OF THE BULGE
yakmatt is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
battle, bulge, chance, nazis, stood, winning



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What was the chance of Mexico winning the Mexican-American war? DeliciousTomatoesYay American History 40 March 6th, 2015 06:39 PM
What chance did the Axis powers have of winning WWII? Salah War and Military History 104 April 26th, 2012 01:51 AM
Did The Boers Have any chance of winning The Second Boer War??? The Cell Speculative History 23 April 13th, 2012 11:04 AM
Did the British have much a chance of winning the American War for Independence? Salah American History 69 February 15th, 2012 07:57 PM
The men who stood up to the Nazis Naomasa298 European History 29 August 24th, 2011 02:40 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.