German engineering woes

[friendly_jacek]

i see it turned into a tank superiority discussion with no end in sight. there is no way to compare tanks on paper with no consideration to the big picture how crews/generals used them, what kind of logistics was in place, how easy it was to mass produce them, how well they worked in local terrain, weather, and with poorly train conscripts, etc, and what threats they faced.

if the T34 was so terrible, how come they are still used today (per my previous post)?

one additional point is from the recollections from "The Stuka Pilot" book. the german top ace dive bomber and tank killer remarked how easy it was to light up US made Shermans compared to soviet made tanks.

 

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted By: Ducked
Red Army summary of Aberdeen Proving Ground evaluation of an early T-34. The comments about the poor quality armour echo those of the tankie above, who notes that the Sherman plate didn't spall off the inside from round impacts like that on the T-34 did.

http://english.battlefield.ru/documents/29-technics/95-evaluation-of-the-t-34-and-kv.html


This was an early model T-34/76(mm gun) and hardly the "definitive version". The problem with the diesel engine was easily correctable with better air cleaners and you ignored several positive comments regarding the thick, sloped armor and good mobility to focus in on a single negative that may well have been rectified in later war production models...

The U.S. Sherman had it's share of teething problems having to do with ammo stowage, there was a reason for the grim humor such as calling them "Ronsons" (from the slogan :"always lights on the first strike!") and "Tommy Cookers". The engineers at Aberdeen had many of their own issues to answer for. But that certainly didn't make the Sherman a bad tank and I think this sort of cherrypicking the Google-phu is a bit pointless..

I might add that most German late war tanks had issues with spalling...

I'll take the comments of Heinz Guderian more seriously...

 

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
i see it turned into a tank superiority discussion with no end in sight. there is no way to compare tanks on paper with no consideration to the big picture how crews/generals used them, what kind of logistics was in place, how easy it was to mass produce them, how well they worked in local terrain, weather, and with poorly train conscripts, etc, and what threats they faced.

if the T34 was so terrible, how come they are still used today (per my previous post)?

one additional point is from the recollections from "The Stuka Pilot" book. the german top ace dive bomber and tank killer remarked how easy it was to light up US made Shermans compared to soviet made tanks.


Yup.

Here's a Wiki entry on the Initial Encounters with T-34's and Kv-1's...

Quote:
At the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, the Germans were expecting little from their opponent's tank forces, which were composed of the old T-26 and BTs. While most of the Soviet Union's armoured forces were composed of such tanks, the T-34 and the KV designs, which were previously unknown, took the Germans by surprise.[4] Both types were encountered on the second day of the invasion – 23 June 1941.[5]

Half a dozen anti-tank guns fire shells at him [a T-34], which sound like a drumroll. But he drives staunchly through our line like an impregnable prehistoric monster... It is remarkable that lieutenant Steup's tank made hits on a T-34, once at about 20 meters and four times at 50 meters, with Panzergranate 40 (caliber 5 cm), without any noticeable effect.

— German battle report, Finkel[6]


And oh yes, the German Army used hundreds of captured T-34 "beutepanzers"...

One would also have to ask "why if the T-34 was 'a pile' and so bad did the German Wehrmacht design a two tanks simply to cope with it?"

 

[Jarlaxle]

Panic. The long-gun PzIV was head and shoulders superior to the T34. Te PzIIIj (with the high-velocity 50mm cannon) could match it.

 

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Panic. The long-gun PzIV was head and shoulders superior to the T34. Te PzIIIj (with the high-velocity 50mm cannon) could match it.


If you actually read what I posted, the 50mm was only effective at short ranges...

But good thing they had those and didn't need to design the Panther or Tiger...

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Red Army summary of Aberdeen Proving Ground evaluation of an early T-34. The comments about the poor quality armour echo those of the tankie above, who notes that the Sherman plate didn't spall off the inside from round impacts like that on the T-34 did.

http://english.battlefield.ru/documents/29-technics/95-evaluation-of-the-t-34-and-kv.html


This was an early model T-34/76(mm gun) and hardly the "definitive version". ...


Sure, as I stated.

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh


The problem with the diesel engine was easily correctable with better air cleaners and you ignored several positive comments regarding the thick, sloped armor and good mobility to focus in on a single negative that may well have been rectified in later war production models......


I picked the armour thing out because it related to something I'd posted earlier. Anyone who wants to read the whole thing has the link. Not much point in me reproducing it all.

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh

The U.S. Sherman had it's share of teething problems having to do with ammo stowage, there was a reason for the grim humor such as calling them "Ronsons" (from the slogan :"always lights on the first strike!") and "Tommy Cookers".


I think the Soviets had the diesel version as used by USMC, which was probably less flammable. The tankie mentioned that US HE ammunition was less likely to explode in a fire, nice if you are hiding under a burning tank, but not a property of the tank itself.

You dont have to convince me anyway, I loved my Lada, and if the T-34 was so awful they probably wouldn't have won the war for us with it.

I just thought it was interesting, as was the non-defensive Russian reaction to the critique. (A lot less defensive than yours, in fact)

Long time ago I read an interesting account of immediate post-war Berlin (Berlin, Grey City, or something like that) by a Brit in I think the Guards Armoured Division. Very The Third Man -esque.

He describes a parade (I suppose, a Victory Parade) by the allied armies. The Western forces did the spit-and-polish thing, the Soviets just drove on as from the line of march, muddy tanks, clutter on the decks, etc, and the German crowd laughed at them.

The Russians didn't seem much bothered. The author (or maybe a Russian he spoke to, can't remember) points out that the same tanks had just chased some of that audience all the way across Eastern Europe, and they weren't laughing much then.

 

[Wolf359]

I think you're missing the quality over quantity aspect of it. I think they made something like 65,000 T-34s whereas there were only around 6k Panthers, even less Tiger and Tiger II's.

They were also manufactured up to 1958 so that's why they were in service late. Not every country can afford to go with the latest and greatest. Iran is still flying the F-14 Tomcat even though the US scraped them all. I think Panzer production stopped after the war...

 

[OVERKILL]

I'm not going to wade into the murky waters on this tank debate, but I will mention that I appear to have watched far too much Disney pirate fantasy.

 

[friendly_jacek]

Originally Posted By: Andy636
If the Panther numbers look mind blowing, you should read on the average factory accepted hours life span of the T-34/76 and the standard issued hammer used to engage gears

since you mentioned that, i looked it up. T34's guaranteed factory engine life was 100hrs. While initially they had problems with that (mostly due to oiled air filters that were supposed to be cleaned and reoiled every 3 hrs, but no one did it in the field, including americans who evaluated the tank), later, 300 hrs was the norm. if one translates that to the marching kilometers, i'm estimating 100hrs=1500km and 300hrs=4500km assuming 15km/h marching speed.

Quote:
Normally, the engine should be able to run for 100h without issues. But due to material and quality issues the engines often didn’t came that far. Continuous improvements during the war increased the life time of the engine constantly to values of 300h and beyond.


http://www.kampfpanzer.de/propulsion/v-2

 

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted By: Ducked
[/quote]

Sure, as I stated.


Indeed.

Quote:
I think the Soviets had the diesel version as used by USMC, which was probably less flammable. The tankie mentioned that US HE ammunition was less likely to explode in a fire, nice if you are hiding under a burning tank, but not a property of the tank itself.



Correct. They Soviet Shermans also tended to have the 76mm gun though they were not up to the M-4A3E8 standard that served in the U.S. Army into the 50's and I don't know we sent them the better HVAP ammo using tungsten, which was rationed here due to a shortage of it so mostly our tank destroyers used it. The Shermans generally didn't have big problems with the gasoline/petrol engines, it was more the ammo stowage problem that was corrected and cut down on "brew ups." The diesel engines worked well though, but there was a limitation on production and the U.S. Navy had precedence for diesel engines...

Quote:
You dont have to convince me anyway, I loved my Lada, and if the T-34 was so awful they probably wouldn't have won the war for us with it.

I just thought it was interesting, as was the non-defensive Russian reaction to the critique. (A lot less defensive than yours, in fact)


Ha. Too many WWII site battles and posts...

I'm not saying the T-34 was perfect by any means. But I think if you ask the boys of U.S. Army's Task Force Smith that were overrun by T-34/85's in 1950 during Korea, I doubt they'd make fun of the T-34's crude armor or lack of finish. Their bazooka rounds just glanced off the armor. Although, it wasn't a fair fight...

Quote:
Long time ago I read an interesting account of immediate post-war Berlin (Berlin, Grey City, or something like that) by a Brit in I think the Guards Armoured Division. Very The Third Man -esque.

He describes a parade (I suppose, a Victory Parade) by the allied armies. The Western forces did the spit-and-polish thing, the Soviets just drove on as from the line of march, muddy tanks, clutter on the decks, etc, and the German crowd laughed at them.

The Russians didn't seem much bothered. The author (or maybe a Russian he spoke to, can't remember) points out that the same tanks had just chased some of that audience all the way across Eastern Europe, and they weren't laughing much then.


That's probably true. There was another victory parade in Moscow(? I think) where the senior U.S., French, and British commanders such as Patton and Monty were present. During the parade, they heard a distant thundering rumble as the ground shook and appeared the Soviet IS-3 series tank that made them rather nervous as they went by since the West did not have a true heavy tank to counter it until the (awful) American M-103 and the British Conquerer...

After checking: It was actually the same parade you mentioned I think, Berlin 1945...

 

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
I'm not going to wade into the murky waters on this tank debate, but I will mention that I appear to have watched far too much Disney pirate fantasy.




If you want to make Russian WWII website posters mad, mention the film "Enemy at the Gates" as a seminal war film...

 

[SeaJay]

Here is my take: German engineering turns out some of the most elegant engineering designs. However, their designs are worried more about the elegance than in making something both reliable so frequent repairs are not needed, and in the ease of repairing in the event something does go wrong.

 

[Jetronic]

Spending effort on making something repairable that hasa life expectancy of hours was probably decided to be moot. And I agree. Better reliability would be a better area to invest in.

On a side note, the Leopard I tank had reduced power and didn't carry as much armour in peace time to increase durability. I have no idea how much the durability suffered in full fledged war trim, but it must've been significant. Other tank design probably used a similar approach.

 

[umungus1122]

"On a side note, the Leopard I tank had reduced power and didn't carry as much armour in peace time to increase durability. I have no idea how much the durability suffered in full fledged war trim, but it must've been significant. Other tank design probably used a similar approach."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_1

The Leopard I traded maneuverability, speed, and firepower for armor protection, the same philosophy as with the AMX-30. It was thought at the time there was no practical conventional steel armor thickness that could protect against HEAT projectiles. Later variants carried add-on layered armor. The V-10 engine is more powerful than the M60 series' Continental.

 

[Nickdfresh]

Exactly, other than the armor being too thin (until appliqué armor upgrades), the Leopard 1 is an excellent design. The French and Germans made a mistake but the Leo was highly adaptable and there were composite armor packages available that upgraded the weak points of the tank...

 

[supton]

Side question: I recall a Clancy book in which he describes a T34 would put a kilogram of metal shavings into the sump, just from engine break-in. Forget what book though. That always struck me as hyperbole. Was it? I could try look it up, I think it was a latter book (China or Japan invading Russia, that reminds me that it's been too long since I read his books).

 

[bmwjohn]

I thought both German and Russian tanks were diesel, whereas American Shermans and "Ronsons" M-3? were gas v-8's and highly explosive. Also, I thought Panthers were medium tanks whereas Tigers were heavy tanks. ALSO, I have Amazon prime and read book bub, a listing of daily e books for cheap (on that day) including a book on the Prussian - German staff by T. Dupuy?, ($1.99?) suggesting the overwhelming training advantage of German officers and even NCO's meant real gains, considering German field artillery was overwhelmingly horse drawn, little truck transport, much armor was a mix of French, British, Czech, and other handy remnants, and vehicle repair often meant ship by rail back to the German factory 200-500 miles. Russians were smart enough to use their OWN tanks and weapons but US support stuff, i.e. Studebaker trucks. Just FYI.

 

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted By: bmwjohn
I thought both German and Russian tanks were diesel, whereas American Shermans and "Ronsons" M-3? were gas v-8's and highly explosive.


All German armored fighting vehicles were gas with maybe a few captured enemy diesel units like the T-34 and Sherman.

Ronson was a lighter company and the M-3 was called the Lee or Grant and was a stopgap tank until the Sherman was ready. It enjoyed some initial success but its 37mm turret gun was useless by 1941 and the 75mm mounted in the hull became a major disadvantage when the Germans learned to cope with it. The high silhouette and poor cross country performance in the USSR led Red Army tankers to call it "the grave for seven men". However, it was initially effective and its gun caused problems for the Germans while in British service in the Desert. Once the Sherman was ready they were withdrawn from front-line service except for the British fighting in Burma, where it was a very effective infantry support weapon against the Japanese...

The issue with the M-4 Sherman had more to do with the ammunition storage rather than the engine. Once they installed water jackets for "wet stowage" and reconfigured ammo storage patterns, Shermans become much less susceptible to "brewing up" immediately. The German tanks had the same problem and their fuel systems were actually less stable when penetrated...

Quote:
Also, I thought Panthers were medium tanks whereas Tigers were heavy tanks. ALSO, I have Amazon prime and read book bub, a listing of daily e books for cheap (on that day) including a book on the Prussian - German staff by T. Dupuy?, ($1.99?) suggesting the overwhelming training advantage of German officers and even NCO's meant real gains, considering German field artillery was overwhelmingly horse drawn, little truck transport, much armor was a mix of French, British, Czech, and other handy remnants, and vehicle repair often meant ship by rail back to the German factory 200-500 miles. Russians were smart enough to use their OWN tanks and weapons but US support stuff, i.e. Studebaker trucks. Just FYI.


The Panther was classed as a medium, but its weight ballooned up with the demands for massive thickness for the frontal armor causing the afore mentioned drivetrain issues...

Again, for all their high tech, "wonder weapons" and image of sophisticated "Blitzkrieg" tactics (which didn't actually exist), the German Army (Heer) had rather poor mobility in long advances and suffered a logistics nightmare from 1940 onwards since they were a rail-bound army that needed pack animals. Yes, they had well trained and motivated troops that somewhat mitigated this while on the defensive for much of the war. But German troops did crack at a breaking point that was hard to reach, but there were cases where they collapsed in Operation Cobra in the West and Bagration in the East...

They used captured French tanks mainly in counterinsurgency and internal security operations in occupation and in secondary theatres like Yugoslavia as they were obsolete quickly after the Fall of France. They did use them in Normandy against mainly U.S. troops, but they were quickly destroy since they were little more than cannon fodder that wre expendable at that point that were effective only against infantry not supported by tanks...

 

[Wolf359]

I believe the Sherman was also a gas engine although the T-34 was diesel. Also the Ronson slogan lights first every time didn't show up as a slogan til after WWII.

The Russians used all the supplies the US sent and that included tanks and planes.

The Germans also had a few other advantages. Prior to Hitler ripping up the Treaty of Versailles, the army was limited in the number of officers that they could have so the numbers they had were of high quality. A few wrote the book on armored warfare. Stalin had executed many of his officers which is why they did so bad in the Winter War in Finland. All their tanks also had radios whereas the Russians only had one per command tank so they couldn't really give orders to other tanks while the battle was under way. And while the T-34 was a major threat initially, they were deployed piecemeal and many of the German 88 artillery finished them off. Stalin also interfered with the army a lot and wanted immediate attacks so that the Germans were able to finish off one attack one at a time. Had they waited to be massed, it would have been worse. After a while Stalin interfered less and things went well, and Hitler interfered more and things went worse...

Plus Germany fought with the commander exposed whereas the Russians were buttoned up, that led to better situational awareness.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Most Shermans had gas power. Some (mostly used by the British) had paired 6-71 Detroit power.