Questions about tanks

[Musti]

It is not even good for resources as you have to thicken the plates in order to enhance the armour (Tiger I).

Angled armor doesn't save resources, or weight, the reduction in thickness is made up by the increase in size.

[VonMudra]

Mostly, it was because German tank design was piggy backing for a long time on pre-war designs.  The Panther and some TD's were really the only tanks the Germans designed after seeing how tank combat operated.  Even the Tiger had already been in development before the war, and changing its armour around would have essentially meant starting from scratch.  The Germans were more than happy to simply up gun and put on as much armour as possible on an older chassis rather than have to deal with inventing new tanks and new production lines.  Of course this meant they were hard-pressed to stay competitive in tank design, but it was all they could do with such a nasscient tank industry.  When you're only outputting a couple hundred a month, changing around the production line and style could cripple the chance of producing ANYTHING.

[THeTA0123]

Not to mention production costs. A 1942 Panzer IV costed 250 000 reichmarks (total cost, resources, manhours) and a Tiger tank 850 000.

One year later, When hitler finnaly listend to Speer this was reduced to 154 000 Reichmarks. But still way.to late.

In the beginning already, the allies tried to concentrate on one chassis as possible. For example the M3Lee/M4 sherman chassis. They used it for shit tonnes of vehicles. Heck even the pershing used Sherman tank parts.

But so little part compatibility for German tanks...

Or things like weapon production. The MKB42/STG43/44. As much epic as these weapons sound, if your ammo production capability are just sufficient, you dont introduce another unique cartidge. Everybody always believed that the germans were the first with the "assault rifle" and intermediate cartidge. But Russia already had these things in 1940. Stalin simply forbid there issue towards Troops because he believed trying to introduce a new cartidge and weapon in the middle of the war towards front line troops would be murderous towards supply chains. And he was correct.

[Kading]

Mostly, it was because German tank design was piggy backing for a long time on pre-war designs.  The Panther and some TD's were really the only tanks the Germans designed after seeing how tank combat operated.  Even the Tiger had already been in development before the war, and changing its armour around would have essentially meant starting from scratch.  The Germans were more than happy to simply up gun and put on as much armour as possible on an older chassis rather than have to deal with inventing new tanks and new production lines.  Of course this meant they were hard-pressed to stay competitive in tank design, but it was all they could do with such a nasscient tank industry.  When you're only outputting a couple hundred a month, changing around the production line and style could cripple the chance of producing ANYTHING.

This is very correct. However, it should be pointed out that German armor WAS sloped...just not very much. Generally 10 degrees of slope on the boxy ones at the front. From what I understand, some design board reckoned that 10 degrees was more than enough to add deflection value to the armor. It was also reasoned that the increase in protection provided by armor with a steeper slope would be overshadowed by the decrease in usable internal space. This was a problem found in the T-34 which was confounded by the use of Christie type suspension.

This, I believe, is one of the reasons that the Panther is such a bulky tank (though about the same height as the M4 Sherman). So as to allow for a more roomy interior while still having sloped armor. And, to be clear, Panthers are pretty roomy inside for a tank.

[Zoologic]

This, I believe, is one of the reasons that the Panther is such a bulky tank (though about the same height as the M4 Sherman). So as to allow for a more roomy interior while still having sloped armor. And, to be clear, Panthers are pretty roomy inside for a tank.

Same goes for Sherman. But T-34 need to maintain their low profile, while sacrificing interior space and ammo capacity, judging from how long most of them will last in the battlefield.

[Kading]

This, I believe, is one of the reasons that the Panther is such a bulky tank (though about the same height as the M4 Sherman). So as to allow for a more roomy interior while still having sloped armor. And, to be clear, Panthers are pretty roomy inside for a tank.

Same goes for Sherman. But T-34 need to maintain their low profile, while sacrificing interior space and ammo capacity, judging from how long most of them will last in the battlefield.

Their ammo capacity had little if anything to do with how little they (especially in the early years) lasted. When they were first introduced, a LOT of the crews had a painful lack of training, it got to a point where some crews were getting 7 hours or less on a tank before being put into combat. In addition, when T-34s first hit the front line, a LOT of them didn't have radios.

[CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE]

I've read some stories (particularly surrounding Stalingrad) about tanks literally coming off the assembly line and driving straight into battle. How much of that is romantic horseshit versus truth? It seems too glorious to be true but at the same time I stopped being surprised about WW2-related things a long time ago. Did this happen with any army?

[THeTA0123]

Guys who do you think T34's did not lasted as long?

1. The germans are on the defense, the russians on Defense
2. The german tank guns and anti-tanks by 1943 all pierced trough T34 armour


Lets say 15 T34's advance. They get targeted by 1 pak 40. By the time the T34's had found the pak 40 and retaliated, atleast 2 -3 T34's where hit.

[Zoologic]

I've read some stories (particularly surrounding Stalingrad) about tanks literally coming off the assembly line and driving straight into battle. How much of that is romantic horseshit versus truth? It seems too glorious to be true but at the same time I stopped being surprised about WW2-related things a long time ago. Did this happen with any army?

I also saw documentaries saying that T-34 leaving tank factories without proper gunsights. They just refuel and head straight to the battle. I don't know how they will organise it self, like where to go and where to shoot. Because in that kind of situation, it is not RTS game where tanks can just "head straight to the battle" and blew up the opposition. They could kill the friendlies.

Guys who do you think T34's did not lasted as long?

1. The germans are on the defense, the russians on Defense
2. The german tank guns and anti-tanks by 1943 all pierced trough T34 armour

Lets say 15 T34's advance. They get targeted by 1 pak 40. By the time the T34's had found the pak 40 and retaliated, atleast 2 -3 T34's where hit.

Judging from the number of loses, I believe most T-34 were destroyed not long after they have been deployed. The simplicity of production made the great number of them easily replaceable. I used to believe they are quite the best tank (a.k.a the "real best"), in the early years, they are virtually the best tank (even almost invincible in FH1 maps), then in the later years, they have more capable gun (series 85). But their statistical performance says otherwise. Documentaries and popular TV experts only cared about attention, so they will make surprising contrarian hipster remarks about Soviet tanks to counter the mainstream popularity of German tanks and distort the fact that Soviet tanks generally doesn't perform any better than Western Allied ones. I hate that. I couldn't get that wrong perception coming from them out of my mind. (including the fact that the brunt of the WW2 are fought in Eastern front)

Now questions:

In the early years, it haven't been combat tested, so their survivability are not known yet. But, what is the real reason behind the limited ammo storage in Soviet tanks?

Then still related to T-34s and early Soviet tanks without radio. How do the crews communicate and coordinate their action? The Sotka diesel engine is very noisy (I listened to YouTube samples from restored engines), I could imagine how painful it was for T-34 crews in that crampy and poorly insulated cabin. Do the commander kick/physically touch the driver to give him signals?

How they communicate with other tanks? I saw videos where German tank crews use semaphore-like flags and hand signals to signal orders between tanks. Do the Soviet use this method or they planned every of their action before moving in?

[Oberst]

The T34 was a decent tank, as was the Sherman. I am pretty sure, every tank with an average overall performance would have won the war, if produced in large numbers. Mass production usually comes with a simplification of the overall design, which also helps in field maintenance. Mass production also makes spare parts easily available etc. This is what made the sherman and the t34 being one great asset to the allies to win the war.

[THeTA0123]

People glorify and overrate german tanks because of there firepower and armor. But that is not what wins a war


Sure, there kill counts are impressive. But this is also because the germans kept record of this, and in turn glorified them in Propaganda (Against the wishes of Many german panzer aces)

But when you count in the other things...Reliability (PZIII and IV were excellent, but what came after was not), Costprice per tank, logisitics, maintenance...... Then german tanks fail horribly....
Also mere simple decisions wich albert speer wanted to do in 1940, were postponed by Adolf hitler as late as 1943.

Meanwhile the T34 and Sherman tank shared so many compoments, were production friendly, maintenance friendly and reliable. Okay their firepower and armor were not up to date by 1944...But the other things all made up for it


This doesnt mean the germans were dumb. Heck some people in the wehrmacht envisioned the "standard panzer" already in 1939. But Hitlers obsession with big allied heavy tanks like the Matilda, Char B1 and Eventually KV-1 tank all made those efforts invane. Let us build a gigantic 850 000 reichmarks Tiger tank of 55 tonnes, instead of a simple, yet effective standard panzer of mere 90 000 reichmarks...

[Zoologic]

Sure, there kill counts are impressive. But this is also because the germans kept record of this, and in turn glorified them in Propaganda (Against the wishes of Many german panzer aces)

That is not the point, they may kept record of how many they have killed, but also how many that they lost. So, it is being neatly kept and contains actual numbers. That is how we get the notion that the fact is, German tanks (and its crews and the commanders) performed relatively better. It can only become a problem if the number is exaggerated.

Yes, I am aware that price-wise, the cost of German tanks is ridiculously high compared to what the country can afford. And also how Panther was pressed into service and the story of its gearbox keeps grinding and refusing to work. Then we have Tiger's interleaved wheels that keep collecting muds and jam itself in Russian "road." Not to mention they use fuel-thirsty gasoline engine that is also more maintenance demanding than diesel engine. This, coupled with the fact that Germany is lacking of resources.

It is not surprising that this came from Hitler himself, a guy with inferiority complex, that he wanted everything at his dispense to be "superior" at the cost of many things. Anyway, all things considered, Soviet tanks = cheap, working, but barely acceptable. German tanks = too expensive, too complex, but dominating. Allied tanks = reasonable, working, and adequate. So why not we say American/British tanks (Sherman/Cromwell) are the best? It is not that we are bowing to their jingoism or Hollywoodish pop culture. It is based on simple logic, no?

So, T-34 and Soviet tanks, why is their ammo limited compared to storage in Shermans or Panzer IVs? How do they communicate inside the tank and with other tanks?

[LuckyOne]

So why not we say American/British tanks (Sherman/Cromwell) are the best? It is not that we are bowing to their jingoism or Hollywoodish pop culture. It is based on simple logic, no?

Because claiming one tank is the "best" needs weighing and evaluating many factors. Yes, the Allied tanks were probably, overall looking "the best balanced" (note that I didn't say the best), and even that, only after getting adequate firepower. But to any WWII Sherman/Cromwell crew member, they were a deathtrap.
Of course the mechanics liked them because there were a lot of spare parts lying around and even the holed tanks were easy to patch up, wash out and fill with new greenhorns.

[VonMudra]

German tanks in normandy achieved a whooping 1.5-2:1 KDR in tank v tank combat against allied tanks.  So, counting they were also on defense most of the time, that's not that much better performance.  Also, in a british field study conducted after Normandy, they found that, to achieve 100% victory assurance, they needed a 2.2:1 ratio against german tanks.  Germans needed, meanwhile, 1.5:1 to achieve the same 100% victory assurance.  Inbetween of course could go either way.  So even if the allies had a 1-1 ratio, that's still about 50/50 victory for their tankers.

[Butcher]

But aren´t the losses of the falaise pocket in that kd ratio also? In that one operation Germans were cut off and could only get around 100 tanks out of Normandy.