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, 07:12 AM   #31
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,412

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
They might have gotten farther as the Sherman was faster then the Tiger and King Tiger tanks, but the issues of fuel probably would have still been a problem..
Supply was a problem. Having faster tanks doesn't mean you advance further or faster as your supply still moves at the same speed.
An armored column mover between 2.5 and 5 MPH

Quote:
...the two Tiger tanks were practically invulnerable, yes, BUT they were both slow and heavy. The King Tiger is the heaviest tank ever. It is heavier then the modern American (M1A1 Abrams) and German (Leopard 2) MBTs...
The Tiger II (or King Tiger) was not the heaviest tank ever built. There may be more but I can think of at least two heavier tanks: The British Tortoise and the "hunting" version of the Tiger II.

Edit: I just looked it up, the American T-28 was also heavier.

Quote:
...the late Panzer IVs and the Panthers, however, were lighter, faster, more mobile, and to a great extent better protected from the weapons the Western Allies had...
Are you saying the Pz IV was better protected than a Tiger II ?

Quote:
...the goals of Watch on the Rhine were far beyond the capacity of the German army and the manpower they had available...
Beyond the resources the Germans had, specifically fuel and air power.

Quote:
...most historians have stated that Germany's best chance in 1944 was to transfer those units east and let the Western Allies conquer Germany. In doing so, Stalin wouldn't get Berlin and Germany wouldn't be divided at the end of the war (as the Western Allies could then do what MacArthur did in Japan, deny the Soviets entry).
You mean surrender in the West after Normandy?

Not sure what Stalin would've thought about that.

Last edited by Poly; June 25th, 2012 at 07:31 AM.
Poly is offline  
Remove Ads
Old June 25th, 2012, 07:22 AM   #32
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,412

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...
A StuG (Sturmgeschutz) wasn't a tank it was an artillery piece.

They weren't part of the Panzer Waffe and were manned by artillerymen not Panzer crews.
Poly is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 07:24 AM   #33

Bish's Avatar
Pain in the butt
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk.
Posts: 8,047

I am pretty certain the Maus would be the best contendor for heaviest tank ever built.
Bish is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 07:28 AM   #34

Bish's Avatar
Pain in the butt
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk.
Posts: 8,047

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post

the "hunting" version of the Tiger II.


.
The jagdtiger wasn't a tank either, so that wouldn't really count.
Bish is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 07:33 AM   #35
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,412

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bish View Post
I am pretty certain the Maus would be the best contendor for heaviest tank ever built.
I don't think the Germans ever actually built one though Bish.

I have seen pictures of an experimental hull but never a completed AFV.
Poly is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 07:41 AM   #36
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,412

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bish View Post
The jagdtiger wasn't a tank either, so that wouldn't really count.
Well true it was also manned by artillerymen rather than panzer crews but the Germans called them Panzerjaeger (hunting tanks).

The Swedish "S" tank didn't have a rotating turret either.
Poly is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 07:47 AM   #37
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 877

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
I don't think the Germans ever actually built one though Bish.

I have seen pictures of an experimental hull but never a completed AFV.
they built two prototypes of the v2 variant i believe, one completed model went into action around it's proving grounds, others debate that. I even think there's one still around in a museum somewhere.

Last edited by amazedkat; June 25th, 2012 at 07:54 AM.
amazedkat is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 07:47 AM   #38

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
A StuG (Sturmgeschutz) wasn't a tank it was an artillery piece.

They weren't part of the Panzer Waffe and were manned by artillerymen not Panzer crews.
True, that was their original role. However, as tank production did not meet demand they were pressed into the (anti)tank role as well.

Later in the war, as the Panzer production struggled to keep up with demand, Sturmgeschütze were pressed into service as Panzerjäger. This was still not an abandonment of the original role. The Sturmgeschütze in the Panzerjäger role were used as such, but the Sturmgeschütze were still used in their original role too. Sturmgeschütz III

The assault gun (the best translation of Sturmgeschütz) units of the Wehrmacht were, contrary to popular opinion, manned by men of, and controlled by, the artillery branch, not the tank branch. This is not to say that StuGs weren't used by the panzerwaffe (tank force), as they were in Panzer-Sturmgeschütz units, usually assigned to the panzergrenadier divisions, but that all of the actual Sturmgeschütz units were controlled by the artillery. Independent Sturmgeschütz Units
Diced is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 07:58 AM   #39

Ghost Mountain Boy's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Tennessee
Posts: 40
Blog Entries: 1

No matter what, the Ardennes offensive was a lost cause for the Germans as the Americans and British would eventually regroup and push them back.

However the superiority of German tanks was one of the few advantages they had. During the first few days of the battle, American tanks were shot up very badly. It was the roving bands of infantry and American engineers that held up the Germans and allowed for a counter-attack by the Americans.

With Shermans, the Germans may have been held up even more by the Americans, causing an even worse defeat.
Ghost Mountain Boy is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 08:07 AM   #40

Guaporense's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: Brazil
Posts: 4,904
Blog Entries: 15

Quote:
Originally Posted by amazedkat View Post
if they had sherman tanks instead of those big stupid tanks they in fact had
No. First:

1 - Tanks were not that important.
2 - Sherman tanks were not very good at all.

The offensive failed because the Allies had a vast numerical superiority and could easily reinforce any area under attack with overwhelming numbers.

The Ardennes offensive involved an attack by 350,000 men and 1,200 tanks, the Allies simply reinforced the sector of the front with 500,000 men and stopped the offensive. The Germans managed to advanced 90 kilometers before the allied reinforcements came, but once they came, advance became impossible.

According to Zetterling, the Allies outnumbered the Germans 3 to 1 in the Western front. That made a German strategic offensive almost impossible.

Quote:
been to the battle area for a visit, and it's all small lanes and steep hills and forests, there's a tiger 11 still on display where it got stuck in the battle.
So? Sherman tanks mostly exploded, due to their weak armor. They were more reliable in the sense that while Panther tanks had 70% readiness, Sherman tanks had a 90% readiness (i.e. 90% of the tanks in a division were combat ready in a given amount of time).

Anyway, it is basic knowledge of WW2 that Tiger tanks had an insignificant impact on the war.

Last edited by Guaporense; June 25th, 2012 at 08:18 AM.
Guaporense 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 05:39 PM
What chance did the Axis powers have of winning WWII? Salah War and Military History 104 April 26th, 2012 12:51 AM
Did The Boers Have any chance of winning The Second Boer War??? The Cell Speculative History 23 April 13th, 2012 10:04 AM
Did the British have much a chance of winning the American War for Independence? Salah American History 69 February 15th, 2012 06:57 PM
The men who stood up to the Nazis Naomasa298 European History 29 August 24th, 2011 01:40 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.