Were German WWII Tanks REALLY Over-engineered?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- Join & Support The Channel: / @factbytes
World War II saw the development of some iconic German tanks, known for their advanced technology and formidable reputation on the battlefield. But were these tanks actually overengineered? Let's explore both sides of this argument.
To understand whether German WWII tanks were overengineered, we need to first acknowledge the technological advancements they brought to the table. Tanks like the Tiger I and Panther were marvels of engineering, boasting thick armor, powerful guns, and advanced suspension systems. These innovations allowed them to outmatch many of their opponents. But, did these advancements come at a cost?
#germantank #ww2tanks #tigertank
Simply put, the Germans didn't have the people or fuel to make massive amounts of smaller lighter vehicles, they needed to protect their tankmen as well as possible and take out as many Allies per capita as possible. Therefore, the best thing Germany could do was build extremely tough and well armed tanks to try and turn the odds in their favor.
That logic partly makes sense but the tiger and early tiger had terrible range and fuel efficiency. Something just big enough for a 75mm/70 cal (with a turret, not a casemate) from the panther and armoured a bit less like a late Panzer 4 would be qualitatively superior to the t34 and a bit easier to mass produce than the panther which was too big for a medium tank
@@lukeallison3713 the panther was the right choice , even faster to build than pz4
Could spit out 3 Panzer 4's for one Tiger II. Just from a logistics view: if you're low on resources, the 75mm KWK 42 makes more sense. Almost as effective as the 88, but less weight, volume and material per round. Would I rather be in a Tiger II than a Panther or a Panther than a Panzer IV in a tank battle? Yes. Does it make much of a differnce if I and my crew are green as grass? No.
@@simondubois3165and slightly cheaper per unit
It was never a question of producing the expensive, cumbersome, heavy Tigers, versus more Panthers and/or Mark IVs, or even SP guns and TDs at even lower cost to deal with enemy armor. The Tiger was intended from inception as a "durchburchwagen", or Break-Through Vehicle, and it was used somewhat in this role at Kursk. I say "somewhat" because already abortive attempts at deploying Tigers had been made near Leningrad in September of '42, and in Tunisia in March-April of '43, both with disappointing results. The British got "Tiger 131" as a result, on a fluke hit that jammed the tank's turret, rendering it inoperable. The Tiger was moderately successful at Kursk when used with the "Panzerglocken", or armored "bell", with Panzer IIIs and/or IVs, as well as assault guns, covering the flanks, and the Tigers behind them in the center, covering them with those 88 mm guns. The losses were actually lower than thought, but there were too few Tigers to really make a difference at Kursk. At the famed battle of Prokhorovka, the Soviets claimed initially over 400 German tanks destroyed, including 70 Tigers. The latter figure was more Tiger tanks than were available on July 5th! In fact, attached to the SS-Panzerkorps was ONE reinforced platoon of FOUR Tigers, and of these, only one was put out of action, with its rangefinder damaged by artillery, which it went back to the assembly area and had replaced; the tank was back in action the following day. Although the Soviets succeeded in their objective of preventing a German breakthrough on the Kursk southern flank, which AG South Commander Von Manstein asserted should be tried again after the July 12th battle, believing that the Soviets were badly mauled. Hitler overruled him, and called off the Kursk offensive, due to the Allied landings, "Husky", in Sicily, and the Soviet counter-offensive at the Orel salient which had also begun on July 12th. The battle of Prokhorovka could be considered a tactical success but a strategic failure, the Soviet BS and outright LIES notwithstanding. Put simply, the Germans no longer had "house money" to play with, but thanks to their own resurgence in proficiency and in war production, along with LEND-LEASE, the Soviets could all the way to BERLIN.
The Tiger found its true "calling" in the defensive role, as a more or less mobile tank killer, but it's debatable as to whether it, along with the King Tiger that succeeded it, was the best way to get that awesome '88' on the battlefield. The Panzer IV-derived Panzerjager IV "Hornisse" (or, as Hitler dubbed it, "Nashorn"), or the Jagpanther, both with the Pak 43 L71 gun that outranged ANYTHING that either the Allies or Soviets had, were certainly cheaper, guzzled less fuel, and were more readily recovered if damaged, though obviously not true tanks. One had to admit the "fear factor" of both Tigers couldn't be discounted, either.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Prokhorovka
Very good video. I would like to add that many breakdowns of german tanks can likely be attributed to the fact that their factories and support lines were constantly bombed. And as the war progressed, they ran out of raw materials to produce spare parts at all. Therefore spare parts were ever harder to produce and harder to transport to the front. Without spare parts, no tank can survive.
And how many were sabotaged in the manufacturing process by forced workers.
@@davidbell1619 I want to see a detailed video of that, because that is an interesting topic on its own.
Like the fact that the Germans picked highly qualified specialists to do some of the forced labor tasks. Those people, being specialists knew how to sabotage equipment, so that is passes quality control, but then fails after a short while in use.
Like building parts to maximum or minimum allowed tolerances. If you have one part or two like that in a system, the system works, but when there are many moving parts like that, connected to each other, the system will fail.
That in turn created headaches for the designers, leading to re-designs of parts.
As a machinist, I fully agree. Stretch your max tolerances to the limit on every part and the whole mechanism will be sloppy. Tighten them all up and nothing will move.
Bombed?, Really?, That's Terribly Sad!.
Germany often couldn't supply fuel for the tanks they had. It has been suggested that at times, the German army lost more tanks to breakdown and fuel shortages than enemy action. More tanks would likely have meant more losses when out of fuel machines had to be destroyed to prevent capture by the enemy.
Yes as the war progressed. Fuel shortages became commonplace Paulus had idle tanks for a week at times. Due to lack of fuel.
Build all the tanks you want when they can't move not much use
Germany was always extremely short of fuel. With tanks unable to manoeuvre for weeks at a time, because there weren’t enough loads of fuel to advance only to defend and retreat in emergency. After March 1944, the situation became even more dire because of the Allied bombing campaign against German oil, refineries, which eventually eliminated 85% of production.
@williamzk9083 The bombing campaign did more damage to the suply lines than actually the production of oil.
Most of Germany's oil was also synthetic, not crude.
Something like 90% of Germany soft skinned vehicles had been destroyed by the bombing campaign by the end of 1944.
Interestingly, Germany produced more oil in 1944 than any other year.
@@brianlong2334 “Germany Produced Mire oil in 1944”. Not correct according to the records with USBS and fischertropsch do org library. They produced more munitions in 1944, but not for oil they lost 85% of their production.
At wars end Panther armor was reported to be brittle and would shatter. This was due to a shortage of critical alloying elements - Cr, Mo, Ni, …. and yet the wreck of the KMS GNEISENAU may have sat in harbor from 1942 with no doubt 1,000s of tons of good prewar armor.
I’ve seen pictures of Panther armor that were cracked open, almost like they got hit by a huge sledgehammer.
@@brennanleadbetter9708 Nothing like an “over match” from a 122 mm AP from a JS-2 or 152 mm AP from a JSU-152. I’ve seen similar pictures. As Nicolas Moran “The Chieftain” of YT & WOT fame says, “an extreme emotional event.”
they were meant to reflect shots not tank them ironically
especially by the late war, fuel shortages meant it wasn't necessarily a priority to field a large number of tanks and so focusing on quality per unit was cost-effective. That these tanks still provided such stubborn resistance when so many were mothballed in maintenance at any one time is impressive, if all units had been functional it would have taken much longer before german forces had been overwhelmed.
Also, too, manpower shortages...
More ghost units than real units!
This is what most people overlook. They think that the Germans chose to not mass produce the Panzer IV.
The truth is that even if they had millions of tanks in storage, they only had fuel for a handful of tanks at a time, so they had to make every tank count.
They didn't focus on quality. Not the kind of quality that wins wars anyway. High quality paint job does not win wars.
Actual high quality engineering does, and simplicity is a mark of quality engineering, not complexity.
Complex machines require a higher level of training and experience in order to use them effectively, while the time and resources available for training dwindled as the war progressed
Thanks for an interesting and good quality view of Nazi-Germany's shortcomings when it comes to tank production 👍 The Tiger was never intended for massproduction. It was made for task forces to break up the front when and where it was needed. The Panther was intended to fully replace Panzer IV and to be massproduced. When it overcome it's initial issues (pushed too fast into the Kursk battle) it become probably the best tank for Nazi-Germany during the war. After Panther Hitler became obsessed with heavy heavy tanks like Tiger II and JagdTiger. Crazy to summarize it in one word. If they had kept any logic in the last years of the war they would had focused on produce more StuG IV and Jagdpanther. But the war was already lost no matter what.
It's actually a terrible view and just repeats the usual nonsese. It doesn't deserve any praise. If it were good it would have talked about man hours to produce a tank, it would have cinsidered the newness of the tank Instead it taled about ideology etc. It would have talked about combat effectiveness in a meaningfulness way such as exchange ratios and whether in retreat or advance. It would have considered that Panther and Tiger II were new tanks only entering servivce in 1943.
@@williamzk9083 The older I get the more I realize that life is not black or white. What matters is from perspective we are looking from and our personal view/interest. I cannot agree with you but I respect your point of view. On the other hand I will not discuss it further because we will not come together in opinion. What we can agree on is that we disagree. I am fine with that.
You're right in that they were never intended to be the main battle tank but Tigers 1's were produced in roughly the same numbers as the Brit's Cromwell. Mass production doesn't mean you have to make 10,000s of an item. It only means you've set up a production line to make dozens or more instead of just one.
@@readhistory2023 Semantics is interesting. "Production" means using standardized designs, machinery and assembly line techniques. "Mass" defines as large scale. Obviously we need help by the context to get a better definition of large scale production, i e mass production. The production of Tiger I was around 1500 while the Panther was around 6000. In other words, the Tiger reached only 25 % of the total volume of the Panther. If we then express that Panther was mass produced then we can conclude Tiger I were not. In this context it is irrelevant to compare with the produced numbers of a specific British tank. It's about Nazi-Germany's tank production.
@@dennismwallentin296 As something is “mass produced” in large numbers it’s cost reduces to a small multiple of the raw material costs as fabrication costs reduce. The Tiger II cost just over twice as much as a Panther in man hours. This is pretty good considering the Tiger II weighed 50% more and was produced in an amount of 500 instead of 5000. Probably a lot of components like the ML230 engine, the 88 gun, MG, optics, hydraulics etc are produced in high quantities.
It was the best bad option they had. More cheaper tanks would require more men and fuel. Resources that Germany lacked.
Regarding the Panzer 4, it had reached its end of upgradeability and thus the panther, which had it beat in almost all measures, was needed.
Any tank with the 75mm KWK 42 was the equal or better of any tank it faced due to that weapon's accuracy and firepower. While the Panther offered significantly better protection than the Panzer 4, what's the point of using Panthers if you're going to duel Shermans at close range?
@@hammerfist8763 You do not choose what to produce on "fighting shermans close range" alone. Theres plenty of other scenarios to consider and im sure the people who actually fought the war knew what they were doing. Historians today claim alot of things that isnt nessesarily correct. The T-34 for instance is hailed as one of the best tanks of the war, though battle report show that it was one of the worst. Out of 60kis produced they lost almost 90% of them. Due to its heavily sloped armor it was hard to surive too and so the soviets were forced to send inexperienced soldiers up against veterans. Only ready they won was because germany couldnt outproduce the whole world. No amount of panzer 4 would have changed that outcome.
@@benjammin3381 My statement. this video, many war documentaries, and my 5 years of frontline combat experience indicate opposite of your assumption. "I'm sure the people who actually fought the war knew what they were doing." It's more like the 10-90 rule. 10% had a clue and 90% didn't. The sloped armor of the T-34's helped deflect countless 50mm from Panzer 3's and saved a lot of Russian tanker lives. To then waste those lives by throwing a 100 T-34's over open ground from long range at a platoon of Tigers and getting them all blown to hell before they get in range is idiotic. Just as dumb as Panthers fighting Shermans at point blank range. If you're going to do something that stupid, do it with a cheaper tank. No shortage of stupidity on the Eastern or Western fronts by either of the sides.
@@hammerfist8763 Im not sure i understand your point. Are you saying the panther was a bad design and that they should have stuck to the panzer 4 instead? Cus sure, the panther isnt the best choice in every situation.
German tanks weren't overengineered, so much as improperly engineered. They were the most difficult to build, service, and in many cases to transport and use. Long build times and lack of strategic materials hampered production. The guild system meant the army was constantly shipping skilled workers to the front, then back to the factory again. Complex and sensitive transmissions were routinely damaged by inexperienced German drivers. Interleaved road wheels routinely froze together in the field. To replace a Panther motor you had to first remove the turret, on and on and on. German industry was constantly short on materials and manpower, but design and bureaucracy made those issues far far worse instead of better.
Das ist nicht korrekt, das man beim "Panther" zuerst den Turm abmontieren musste, um den Motor ausbauen zu können. Der Motor war Hinten im Heck durch eine kräftige Abdeckung geschützt, diese Abdeckung konnte Problemfrei entfernt werden, um anschliessend den Motor auszubauen. Ich weiss nicht, woher du diese Information hast, die ist falsch
People use the vague term "over-sngineered" to mean what you are saying. But your detail makes clear what the issues were.
man, finally. Someone has said it that Soviet tanks weren't really reliable in comparison to Allied armour but were more similar in reliability with Nazi armour. and kudos that he didn't swung for the opposite ends where German tanks were insanely unreliable or perfect warmachines but a in-between with no definitive answer.
The thing is Soviet T34 is easy to fix but also not expected to survive anyway and the M4 Sherman variant is reliable but easy to fix as well
@@kaybevang536it's why I believe the Sherman was the best tank it could fight most tanks of the war on equal or near equal terms it was also probably one of the safest/most reliable tanks of the war.
@jakegunning61
With 50 mm armoured the sherman was piece of cake for any german gun !
So tactically it was a looser but strategically by sheer numbers and supported by the most wealthy country, I mean with unlimited oil supply it was a winner.
But I wouldn't enjoy to be a crew member !
Same thing with the t34, many produced but many destroyed and lost for others reasons.
It was impossible for the Germans to beat the Allies in terms of quantity. It was impossible for the Germans to defeat the Allies, period. However, qualitatively, as an Ukrainian I have no problem conceding that the Panther and Tiger are qualitatively superior tanks. The Germans could never be in a position to beat all the Allies even if they built nothing but Panzer IVs. If they simplified the Panther they might have squeezed a few more thousand units out but still lost. The Panther is the overall best tank of the war. The T-34 was build in massive numbers but after the war the Allies looked more to the German example than the Russian one. The way the Abrams and Challengers stomped the T-72s in Iraq was what was waiting for the Russians versus the west in a conventional war, except by the 90s the Soviets didn't have the infrastructure even to swamp with numbers so much anymore.
Yeah, if I were to sit in a 100% working tank in a tank duel, I'd go for a later German tank against a Soviet one. If I was given a finite resources to build a tank unit, I'd most probably go cranking as much of those T-34s and spare parts as possible.
@@mmiYTB Prodcution rates of T-34 were astronomical (possibly another Soviet Lie) but we also know that T-34 had a very high breakdown rate, worse than the Panther, though its field repiar rate was higher. The T-34 also had very poor ergonimics and soft factors that severely impeded their combat performance. The USSR maintained propaganda department to promote the superiority of the T-34. The T-34 is a myth and much of the downplaying of the German tankscomes out of this. The T-34 was not an efficient combat machine.
If the Soviets were smart enough to put the 100mm gun that went on the SU-100 unto the IS-2/3 then the Soviets would have had the best tank of all nations during WWII.
@@mmiYTBno way.
@@WorshipinIdols
The SU 100 only entered Service in October 1944. It took a long time to develop the gun. It’s penetration performance was no better than the 88 mm L71 PAK 43 of the Tiger II despite the bigger caliber.
Pretty sure that Guderian said that the Tiger was an outdated design rushed into production in desperation. It certainly looks like it. No attempt to slope the armour just thick, heavy armour. Result, an overweight , gas guzzler.
And one of most deadly tanks in WW2. No sloped armour? BS, it's front armour had 10° slope.
@@AKUJIVALDOP47 would feast on it
Sloped armor only increases the weight
@@kaybevang536 yeah, about that... Educate yourself about hit ratio of planes against tanks in WW2.
British conducted testing of airpower against Panther, painted in white and parked in the middle of field in known location...it didn't work well and that is saying it mildly.
@@entonduck not really, otherwise there would be no slopes on tanks...
to Win a war you really need both quality and quantity. One often overlooked point is with a higher quality vehicle the crew has a better chance of surviving and becoming a veteran crew. Given finite resource I would rather have X amount of the best tank and in theory better crews.
You did a great job.
Germany had a man power shortage developing during the war.
They needed a military that would exchange every German life for many more allied lives.
This exchange could be 10:1 or even higher.
Ultimately it was impossible
ReichMark (RM)
Stug III 82,500 RM (top tank killer of all time)
Pz III 96,000 RM
Pz IV 103,000 RM
Pz V (Panther) 117,000 RM
Pz VI (Tiger I) 250,000 RM
Tiger II 800,000 RM (300,000 man hours)
These figures don't include armament, radio or logistic costs (at a time of acute fuel shortage) nor reflect the chance of after action recovery. Reliability was relatively poor even for late model Pz V.
There is an interview on youtube with an expert restorer from the tank museum in Kubinka: "Евгений Москалев: я - водитель «Пантеры» / Evgeny Moskalev: I am the Panther driver .". He says that most of the negative myths about the Panther have nothing to do with reality, that this tank was neither too expensive nor extremely difficult to manufacture, and that in terms of field repair and maintenance it was much more convenient than the T-34. He talks about reliability, cross-country ability, suspension, firepower, petrol vs diesel, etc., and gives a very high rating to this tank, and considers it the best even in comparison with the tanks of the early post-war decades.
the main "mistake" was using petrol-motors instead of stronger diesel motors. The both heavy tanks tiger and panther were great,problem was,that from 1944 onwards rare metals for high quality steel and high end motors were not anymore available,which is,why most gear boxes and suspensions were unreliable in reality. the german NEVER could have coped with the output combined of USSR and USA together in tank production
The German economy really wasn't organized well for mass production. Though Speer did his best to correct that but by then Allied strategic bombing was greatly hindering his efforts.
The german tanks played to its national strenghts. Precision in optics for example made it possible, given the right gun, to aim and target and kill allied tanks at ranges where they could not even return fire, but ofc. these were ideal circumstances for the germans on the battlefield.
Notice how famous german Tank aces in their Tigers and King Tigers all sortof started "small" in StugIIIb´s etc. in the earlier stage of war, and survived and got promoted/advanced.
Germany had no option to outproduce the allies in terms of tank numbers and the amount of personnel to use them. It could outproduce and outman opponents like Poland, France, etc. all the early opponents of germany. Against strategic opponents of germany like the soviet union, the germans had success against the early t26, bt5 and bt7 and all the other odd soviet prewar designs, but once the t34 was there, the germans were in shock. The panther design was an attempt to out-qualify the german tankforce over the soviets, but they could never reach the numbers, and the PzKW IV was, even with its updates, less superb on the battlefield than its contemporary t34 opponent. Strategically, germany was in a dead end, tankcompetition wise.
I remember reading during the Battle of the Bulge German propaganda hailed the Tiger II as the tank that would win the war. In reality they were abandoned as they were to heavy and slow to keep pace with the advance, the first casualties without firing a shot.
The optics of German tanks in general were of higher quality than those found in Allied tanks and VASTLY superior to the crude sights of Soviet tanks like the T-34 and KV-1 and 2. Even the IS-1 and 2 tanks introduced from 1944-1945 didn't have comparable optics. This is ultimately doomed the German war effort, because when you're facing an opponent that you know can outproduce you, the WORST decision you can make is to focus on quality over quantity. There was absolutely nothing wrong the Panzer IV whatsoever, and its hull and turret were designed with future-proofing in mind, meaning that it could upgraded to adapt to changing threats as they emerged, and it was very cheap compared to a Tiger to produce. Only the Panther came close to the Panzer IV in the cost and manhours it took to build one of these machines.
@@jebbroham1776 Crew survivability in a Tiger was much higher compared to a Panzer IV though. Even if you have an advantage in manhours to produce the tank, what is the disadvantage in manhours to get an experienced crew? Let´s say it takes Factories exactly 3 times more material and manhours to build a Tiger vs a Pz 4. Let´s say for convenience it takes the allies the same amount of effort to kill a tiger or 3 pz 4´s. Germany looses more manpower in its crew department if they prefer 3 pz 4´s vs a tiger. This is a simplified assumption, ofc, but what you invest more in the production of the vehicle in manhours, you easily get a discount in the amount of manhours lost in crew training, when they die or are injured less frequently in a Tiger, imo.
@@tomtom34b The Tiger was a much more survivable vehicle if hit, I agree. However, from the standpoint of being cost effective in both production time and materials needed to produce one Tiger, 4 or 5 Panzer IV could be produced, and although Germany possessed a lot of iron ore used to make high grade steel that it imported from Sweden throughout the war, the prioritization of it was extremely important for a great many other things as well. The armor of the Panzer IV G also wasn’t far from the hull armor of the Tiger, having an upgraded front hull thickness increase to 80mm, the same as the first model Tiger 1. All I’m saying is that by choosing to build bigger and heavier tanks, production efficiency was reduced to a point where losses outpaced supply, and when that point was reached there was no salvaging the situation in terms of armor lost that could be replaced in the numbers that were needed.
@@jebbroham1776 Very true , in most European combat zones ranges were limited to about 1,000 meters. It made little sense to upgrade the optics for unrealistic ranges. I read somewhere the Russians could build 24 T-34/85s for each Tiger II.
Interesting video, yet let's not forget that the highest decorated tank aces of Germany like Kurt Knispel, Otto Carius, Michael Witmman and some others during World War II were either using the Königstiger or the Panther which with they decimated more than a hundred of allied tanks each. The quality of the Zeiss optics , superior armor and better canon made them better tanks. Maybe except the JS 1 and 2 which I can consider as an equal to the Königstiger or the Panther and perhaps the Sherman firefly (tough less heavier and far less well armored than the Königstiger or the Panther). When the Königstiger or the Panther were badly hit, crews rather destructed than let them operable.
It's kind of like comparing Lee to Grant in the American Civil War. The German tanks are Lee. He looks great and flashy, what an underdog, winning those battles. Because of that, there's a certain mythos. Grant, though, understood what it took to win a war, rather than a battle. And he did just that. Shermans are a war winning tank. Tigers are not. But in fairness to the Tiger, it was rarely used for its intended purpose. It was supposed to be used to break through defended positions. So you'd ship it where it was needed, do the necessary maintenance, smash the enemy in that location, and then turn it over to the other, lighter, faster tanks.
The Panther was good once its teething problems were solved. Great gun on it, nice sloped armor, and so on. Does outperform the Sherman in certain combat aspects, but was generally worse on the logistics/maintenance side of things. But, well, that's kind of to be expected in WW2. The pace of innovation was so fast, and the Sherman was a few years older.
The Firefly, by the way, is a bit overrated. Fitting that gun in had a bad impact on crew ergonomics, plus it had a slow rate of fire. Its SABOT round also had an issue with how it interacted with the muzzle break, resulting in low accuracy at long range. All these are reasons why the US rejected using Fireflies. Of course, on the odd chance you did happen to run into a Tiger (which was very low on the Western front), you'd definitely wouldn't mind having one along, but, overall, because the Sherman was reliable, easy to maintain, and easy to supply/support/ship, there were usually a full group of five Shermans around, and that didn't end well for the rare Tiger.
Yes, German tanks were "over-engineered" by which I mean they took too much material to build, and too much labor (man-hours) to build. The Russian T-34 was meant to be a "throw-away" tank that MIGHT last 6 months. But the Russians built SO MANY, SO FAST a German General on the Eastern Front reported to Hitler personally he HAD to retreat. Hitler replied "My King Tigers are more powerful than 10 T-34's!" The General replied, "Yes Mine Fuhrer, but there are 3,000 T-34's to my 108 Panzers. What do I do?" German tanks became SUPER heavy (up to 88 TONS) and guzzled benzene fuel faster than Germany could make it. Simpler, CHEAPER and many MORE tanks were what was needed. The Panther was a very, very good tank but too few too late.
The Panzer 4 remained "good enough" up until the war's end and served as workhorse but by 1943/44 the tank had reached its limit in terms of exploitation potential. On the other hand the Tiger had among others one flaw which by itself was fundamental - very few could've been produced in practice.
The Panther was as effective in battle as the Tiger while being only ~20% more costly to produce than the Panzer 4. I think it would've made much sense had the Germans redirected the resources from these two tanks to the production of the Panther, making it a workhorse instead of the Panzer 4.
It is said Stalin greatly contributed to rushing of T-44 into production just like Hitler did with heavy tanks. On paper it was mostly a great improvement over T-34-85, while in reality it was a very lacking product for the late- and postward standards.
In pure performance it's main problem was the turret. With some effort they managed to stuff a 100mm gun in it, but even by Soviet standards the ergonomics were unacceptable. In 1945 and onwards the 85mm was adequate only against old stopgap vehicles. Another issue was the lacking armor on turret front. Having the thickest armor there is important, because you can't engage the enemy without exposing it unangled.
The mobility was an even greater issue. Use of aircooling for the engine was undoubtedly a novel venture, but also an utter failure. According to testers the engine overheated even in winter conditions. No doubt this is why the soon following T-54 returned to liquidcooling. To this day only Japanese have truly managed master aircooled diesel tank engines. And lastly to make good use of space the driver and transmission were squeezed into even worse positions as before, hampering their operation.
Somehow with all these failures it was still the price of an IS-3 heavy tank.
My dad was a tank commander he said they were good enough that our shells bounced off them after his first encounter in North Africa he found it was best to shoot the tracks off them.
I’ve read about a similar tactic used by Soviet tankers using Lend-Lease Shermans. They would shoot one of the tracks on a Tiger that was on the move, this would cause it to turn (if they shot the left track, the enemy tank would turn left). They would then put a round in the Tiger’s exposed side armor.
@@brennanleadbetter9708that must have been at quite short ranges. Since you said that when it turns, the side armor will be exposed, that must mean the Tiger is going directly towards the tank that is shooting it. Knowing both how small the cross sectional area of a tank track is from a frontal view and that Soviet tank sights were of particularly low quality, that type of accuracy wouldn’t be possible even at ranges of around 1,000 meters (especially since the target is moving).
@collinwood6573 This was a tactic used by Soviet tankers using Shermans, which had pretty good sights. The following is a text from the book “Commanding the Red Army’s Sherman Tanks”, which was written by a Soviet tank tanker.
“Two Shermans were designated in each platoon for each single attacking Tiger. One tank fired armor-piercing shells at one or the other track, the other tank awaited the moment when the undamaged track had driven the German tank into a 90-degree turn, exposing its entire flank. Then it delivered a solid shot into the fuel cell. As a rule, attacking enemy tanks were permitted to close to four hundred to five hundred meters. It was difficult to break a track at greater ranges”.
Very impressive, that German engineering in search of the appropriate firepower, agility and protection. The Russian T-34 an awesome piece of engineering, as well. It got the job done.
T 34 did it’s Job at being destroyed in mass
@@goldenhawk352 In games and simple minds tank mobility = power to weight ratio + top speed + maybe tracks. Transmission is mostly forgotten. In some (usually speeded up) propaganda videos you can see T-34s zooming through fields like motocross bikes and optimal conditions one could indeed gain high speeds. However in practice T-34 was limited to just 1st and 2nd gear in cross country use thanks to the extremely poor gearbox. Even the road speed couldn't be maintained in summer thanks to "saboteur designed" air filters. Only T-34-85 somewhat improved this in 1944 with it's new gearbox and eventually air filters were also improved.
T34 was shit...decent on paper but build very badly.
It was good enough
ohs.
Great presentation, very balanced. More of this sort of thing is needed to counter the growing myths surrounding World War Two.
Great video's! I would love to see a video about the marder 3. Keep up the great work.
The Panther was probably (along with the T34) the best all-round tank of the war. Contrary to the Allies, the Germans were not able to produce enough of them (due to various reasons) + were not able to provide enough fuel & logistics to support their tanks. Which ultimately led to their demise.
The US & USSR had massive amounts of oil & derived products, while Germany had very little. So little that most of their late war offensives couldn't be sustained (Ardennes, 1944-1945)
12:20 I'd have to disagree on ZIM coatings being extraneous, although a seeming solution to a problem that didnt exist in vast numbers, as it was the Germans who'd employed infantry borne shaped charge magnetic AT mines, but the Soviets certainly could do so to greater extremes in future war efforts..
~ZIM was anti-reflective, took & held paint fairly well, it also absorbed light, helped to break up the tanks outline if viewed from a distance. Yes it took 2 days additional work per vehicle @ the factories, but now modern tank manufacturers are using nearly the same exact process, just a bit chunkier of an anti-slip/silhouette masking coating applied...
With latest examples, such REALLY breaks up a tanks outline against nearly any background, even looking as chonky rock formations against the skyline, provided the paint matches the area of operations of course...
The tales of ZIM catching fire in the field upon getting hit is primarily due to vehicles going out wet, not yet properly cured/off-gassed of constituent gasoline within the formula &/or not properly tiger-torched in the last step...
TIME being of crucial importance during the late war years...
OR getting hit w/incendiary type munitions/White Phosphorus shells, witch'll set nearly anything alight, blind them & choke the crew out with ingress of WP fumes no matter what...
GREAT series/vids!
Excellent comment.
@@WilhelmKarsten
Why thank you Sir, due to our collective contemporary 3 second squirreI attention spans, I usually dont expect nearly anyone to even take the time to READ rather long winded comments, guess you & I are the exceptions I suppose?...;)
I highly recommend Lucas Friedli's excellent 3 volume 'Repairing The Panzers' series of books...
Ive acquired quite the reference book library of WW2 German armor due to my own historic interest, but moreso my latest loooong running art project...
On that note, since 2010, or a bit earlier as the 1st model was made in 2007 when the orig idea came about (Lifelong modeler though. Born: 12-25-1974)
Ive been diligently working away, full time on the project for the last 7-8 years now, a WW2 Mega-diorama of several Wehrmacht/1st LSAH, 2nd S.S DR WerkStatCo's, field hospital, ammo/fuel depot, Nachtrichten/signals gals, old Roman ruins, etc, ect, ect>>> WKSTCo's busily wrenchin away on nearly every German tank/vehicle used. Im just FINALLY getting >closer< to beginning its base. Prob 5 x 10-12 foot wide/long? Maybe larger? (EEK!) As I need the same amount of occupied/un-occupied space in dio to give balance & not overcrowd it...
Too many models to list...
-All told over that span of time with extremely mod'd vehicle kits (Thank goodness for the latest 1/35th scale full interior tank kits, as earlier ones were scratch built, or with AM resin interiors adapts) other models, figures, all the building structures wired for interior lighting, tools needed, aftermarket sets, paint, glue, etc is around 250,000$-300$K invested (Triple EEK! Couldve purchased a 2nd HOME for whats gone into it?!-I plan on donating it away to a museum for !FREE! when all done of course-I'd initially wanted Munster PanzerTruppenSchule/museum, but its just too damn far away)
@ last count I've over 650+ 1/35th figures, well more than 1/2 that number resin offerings @ 15$-20$ per figure, so it adds up quickly. Of course, its MUCH more than just WerkStattCos in the overall dio...
The dios place & time period is a month or so before the early Aug/late July Falaise Kessel, so thinking mid July of 1944? Somewheres near a crossroads w/nearby river/large stream, somewheres mid-ways between the Normandy/French towns of Falaise & Argentan? 15-20 km's from the Caen front (Im still looking for accurate historic info on locations of such)
The site: An extremely accommodating Frenchman's rural 'Shell' gas station>auto/heavy truck repair garage> olde auto/parts junk yard>MACHINE SHOP & auto wrecker/towing biz as his side hustle. (YES, he was well PAID/traded for his services, space & valuable machine shop tooling used) The name of the biz is "Emplacement Auto/Location Auto"....
The dio name: "Tempting Target" as allied overhead air power would make such a scene nearly impossible (LOTS of German AA cannons/vehicle borne cannons @ site)
This dio has turned into an all consuming beast, realizing 10 years ago I was WELL PAST the point of no return, so I keep pluggin away @ her, a hefty chunk has been scratch built as many items just arent available, but thats the part I most enjoy. A literal work of MAGIC, so many of us do EVERY single DAY w/o even realizing it right?..
~Birthing into reality a nebulous idea & thought form made material. Its quite satisfying as an artist, problem is, its been dominating my time, as Ive other art pieces I like to accomplish & dont like switching up mediums/styles mid-stream, plus, re-tooling & configuring my art/alembic space to do so over n' over!
Problem with such is with such a long running project is Ive RE-built the entire thing @ least TWICE over now, as my skill level has progressed, so models only 1-2 years old, just wont make the cut as to quality, so I re-buy&rebuild or re-paint em!...HA!
Ive proven the insight oft stated as to building dioramas: "People/Americans always tend to go TOO BIG as to size!"
Thank you for your time too read it all...
Be Well Wilhelm!
~C.L.R/Huron. Whidbey Island, WA...
I always wonder how the Tiger I would have ended if they stayed with the interim design as the final one (VK 36.00), which was basically a bigger Panzer III. With the same armor, gun and final turret, and some engineering shenanigans to fit the final engine (and also kept the torsion bar suspension from the Panzer III) it would have been a superior design as it would have been smaller and lighter.
But I am guessing the German engineers where just tasked with getting the Tiger out as soon as possible so they just decided to make the tank bigger to solve the engine issues.
I am totally not thinking all this as a Panzer III simp, not at all :)
Very good video.. Makes some interesting points.. In the same notion, i would like to point out that WW2 tank battles and campaigns were very much an issue of air space domination. In May 1940, the Allied Air Force failed miserably to disrupt German mobilization and movement. Though German tanks were less in numbers and technically inferior and they had to overcome fortified positions along the Marne, they still came through. Rommel was in a position to overcome larger enemy tank formations as long as Luftwaffe was protecting him. In Eastern front Germans had control of the skies, or at least parity in numbers, at least till 1943 (when Allied bombings of Germany, forced them to withdraw most of their fighters back to homeland). In Normandy, though the Germans had more and better tanks, they were unable to move their divisions to counterattack, because the Allies had complete air domination, and they practically forced the Germans to move only at night and only through forested areas.. The Battle of Bulge started with bad weather (without Allied planes bothering the Germans) and ended as soon as the sun came out...
Tank quality and quantity was one of the factors, but probably not the crucial one for the outcome of the armored confrontations. In that sense it is impossible to make justice of the superior quality, doctrine and crews of the Germans. That would have been possible only if we could have a battle space only for tanks and armored units.. But one may imagine what would happen if the British and American Shermans and Churcills would strive to break through prepared fortified positions defended by Panthers, Tigers and Stugs...
Except that assumes the German quality, doctrine, and crews are superior. Many German tanks had issues with breakdowns in key systems, in part because the Germans were typically pushing the envelope a bit, not so much relying on proven technology. Even after they'd mostly worked the kinks out, they did not have the reliability of Shermans. Doctrine-wise, Germans were pretty good tactically, sure, but Americans were good at adapting, the British were stoic and would just hang on, and Russia would throw more troops at the problem.
And the Battle of the Bulge as a German offensive was pretty much over prior to the clearing the skies. Fuel shortages, failure to reach objectives in time, blown bridges, inability of the heavy tanks to cross various bridges due to their weight, and dogged defense all combined to grind the offense to a halt. The moment that happened, it was done, because surprise was gone, there weren't more troops to reinforce, and the allies would reinforce, and now get to counteract against Germans that hadn't had nearly the time to prepare defensive positions. Air power added to the mix just added a few more nails to the coffin.
It was an informative and thrilled watching thank you for sharing
I mean if you count logistics and material sourcing as key factors in an engineered design then in fact they were probably significantly under engineered.
Underbuilt. The US Ordnance Department designed components that were twice as strong than needed so were considered to be overbuilt. Those held up longer and could be reused without thought when the damaged vehicle became a parts donor.
Question on the Zimmert? Why was that a waste? Magnetic mines not used enough to warrant the effort?
Yes. Zimmerit was mostly a waste of time and effort as Germany was the only nation to use magnetic magnetic mines in WW2.
Very well put, and an interesting analysis.
The vast majority of the German army moved around on one Horse power
Only thing you need to know about German tanks is the Math 150.000 plus allies tanks to 25.000 German tanks .
🏆🙏🇺🇲🤗
Thank you for sharing
The paradox is that the beginning of the German invasion of the Soviet Union, the Germans had inferior tanks but had well trained tank crews including having FM radios to communicate with the tank unit commanders. At the same time, the Soviet Union had superior tanks but had inferior tank crews with no radios in their tanks. It was said at that time, the Soviet tank crews only had a couple of hours of training, while the German tank crews had months of training. Also, Soviet tanks communicated with each other by having the tank commander sticking their heads out the turret.
At the end, the German tank crews were poorly trained while the Soviet tank crews had many months of such training.
50,000 produced T-34 and the more superior T-34-85 tanks proved the war winning numbers.
I
It is interesting to note that the German 88 artillery piece killed the most Allied tanks.
A lot cheaper to make than a tank, and with the gradual destruction of German War factories, the Nazis’ only solution against Allied tanks. However, 88 gun crews were very much exposed to mortar, and artillery as well as bombing and strafing by Allied warplanes.
But remember, German “Blitzkrieg” strategy depends not just on the their tanks but rather on a combined attack by German warplanes, artillery, tanks and rapid thrusts by German infantry and so, relying on tanks was not a War winning strategy.
I listened to a TV documentary that later in WW2, the Germans could only field 400 battle tanks on any one day compared to 20,000 tanks that the Allies could field. Fyi, the Americans produced 50,000 Sherman tanks and the Soviets produced more than 50,000 T-34 tanks in WW2, numbers that German Generals could only dream of.
And the figures don’t lie, the Germans needed to kill 20 or more Allied tanks compared to losing one of theirs. The figures were the German tanks killed 5 Russian or 4 American/British tanks versus one of theirs and that is a losing strategy.
And remember, later in WW2, the Allies also had superiority in artillery, Air Supremacy, and manpower.
So, you can focus on German tanks but that is only one part of the picture of how the Allies won the War.
The interlocking road wheels of the Mark V & VI tanks made repairs take considerably longer, meaning many recoverable tanks were lost during withdrawals.
But it gave the "big cats" off-road performance that was unmatched by any Allied tank... the Tiger was not only more mobile on rough terrain than the Sherman it was also faster... _Schachtellaufwerk_ is the secret of the Germans superior mobility and higher speeds per Horsepower/Ton ratio.
It had it pros and cons. It did give them better ground pressure, but if mud got in there and hardened, it would jam the wheels.
@@brennanleadbetter9708 It's not a very common problem and its not unique to the German design either, it's a popular myth favored by detractors who refuse to accept that Allied tanks were inferior.
@WilhelmKarsten It wasn’t as much as a problem as people think. However it was a concern for the Germans fighting in Russia, where the mud was like glue. But that goes for any tank. Mud is one of the tank’s worst enemies.
@@brennanleadbetter9708 A German 88mm armor piercing shell is an Allied tanks worst enemy...
Very good,intelligent video.
Ah, finally! An objective review of german ww2 tanks! You have no idea how frustrating it is to watch dozens videos of "experts", who just translate myths and don't consider objective factors like shortage of resources, manpower and constant bombing of facilities and infrastructure.
As the Germans constantly made improvements and additions to their tanks, they also needed different spares for those, so they had to leave other vise fine tanks in Russia, because they couldn't find the spares to keep them running.
thats bullshit. Since late 1941 Panzer III and IV chassis used the exact same drivetrain, only the length of the driveshaft and radiators were different. All domestically produced tank shared a lot of parts, the converted caputured tanks not so much. The Sherman alone came with 5 different engines in comparison.
The larger the tank became the further away they were from blitzkrieg or schwerpunkt as the Germans would call it. Ideally in blitzkrieg smaller more mobile tanks would be preferable.
Schwerepunkt was over by 1942 all defense after that, kursk was a massive mistake.
@johnzehrbach820 not really over, still used but not in attacking much.
From the tiger maintenance manual, "the tracks should be inspected and adjusted every 75km ". Track design caused shock loads on the final drive and or transmission , SHOULD the track be run loose and bull gear slip on the track.
Overengineered, and underengineered at the same time!
They were underengined and had weak drivetrains for the task of keeping their crews alive. Engineers should have been sent to the Russian front to see how their product was REALLY used...
To be fair, the Tiger was employed in a role it was not designed for. It was designed as a breakthrough tank -- Tiger units would be used to break the enemy lines, after which the hole would be filled and exploited by Panzer III, IV, and V tanks, with the Tigers being pulled back for maintenance before being shipped to the next schwerpunkt. Instead, they became the 'anvil' of the panzertruppen, kept in the battle line until the entire battle was over (or they broke down and had to be recovered and repaired). Front-line maintenance was often insufficient for the requirements of keeping a Tiger unit operational over an extended period, which was not what the tanks had been originally intended for, but instead had been thrust into by the changing character of the war.
As others have mentioned, fuel was a huge issue for the German army. More tanks would have meant more fuel needed and also more crews.
You forgot to mention that Zimmerit was an anti-magnetic mine coating. However it was mostly a waste of time and effort as Germany was the only nation to use such magnetic mines in WW2.
The Tiger 1 was conceived and built as a Breakthrough tank and wasn't intended to engage in long battles. The Panther tank as originally designed would have been much lighter. The addition of the extra armour protection greatly increased the weight and the demands on the engine and the drivetrain.
Germany was in the school of Fewer but better armed and protected tanks than lighter more numerous tanks. Fuel, or rather the lack of it, and poor logistics greatly influenced German tank development.
A school of though that America adopted... fewer is better.
The big German tanks were sophistically designed for their time but not over engineered compared with modern tanks. They were reliable on the Eastern Front too compared with the opposition and continued to be so until the war took it's toll on their support such as maintenance facilities. As far as being hard to work on compare the disassembly of a Sherman's suspension units with a Panther's, the road wheels on the latter could be removed by two men with a crowbar.
You should mention that the German enigma code was broken and so enabled the enemy to know Germany’s next move.
And also it took so many countries to defeat Germany, including 3 super power
Well, actually it only took one country to beat them. What Britain and the US did was a sideshow compared to the fighting in Russia. Germany had something like 3/4ths of their divisions fighting against Russia.
Why should he mention "Enigma" in a video about "over engineered tanks" ?
@@daveybyrden3936 German tanks were not ever engineered.
Context is important and relevant. Germany was under tremendous pressure at the front, the home front and the battlefront.
All German military equipment had to be rushed through development and be sent to the front.
German tank crew would wait at the factories for New tanks and straight from the factory to the battle front
The type XXII U-boat went straight from design to mass production there was no time to build a prototype, the requirements at the front were so pressing,
The V-2 rocket went through 63 thousand modifications during mass production
During Luftwaffe meeting Hermann Göring asked for a new and inexpensive emergency jet fight and within less than 90 days a prototype was flown on the 6th of December 1944 (Heinkel He162)
Germany had to rush everything while under day and night air raid. German workers had to get up two and sometimes 3 times during the night and go to the air raid shelter and still be at work on time.
The tiger was designed as a breakthrough tank, the lighter tanks would follow up tanks.
If a piece of German equipment don’t work well some people say, Germany engineers this and Germany engineers that, NO they had to be rushed in to battle
And many of those problems would be solved later, the panther would initially overheat and transmission problem but later was fixed.
Sorry I write too much perhaps.
@@reginaldmcnab3265 Thanks for replying and I'm sure people will find your words useful.
But all that I wanted to say is this:
The video TITLE asks a specific question.
The video spends 15 minutes NOT answering the question.
@@daveybyrden3936 Yes very true! Peace and respect!🙏 great video by the way, chatting with you.
An angled tiger is scarier than a maus...
Tanks like the Tiger I and Panther were marvels of *bad* engineering.
Calling tanks like the Tiger "amazing marvel of engineering" is not understanding what good engineering is.
The mark of high quality engineering is simplicity, not complexity; efficient use of weight, volume and man-hours, not making it big, heavy and expensive; making it reliable and maintainable, not a hangar queen that needs its turret removed to do maintenance on transmission.
Here's an example. Tiger and T-44 look almost like the same tank on paper: similar armor, similar gun, contemporaries. But Tiger weighs 54 tonnes while T-44 weighs 32. Which do you think is designed better? On a general level, not bells-and-whistles level?
Germany couldn’t win the numbers game. Even if they built less Tigers and more PZ IVs, they would’ve had to worry about having more men, fuel, and supplies to make up for it. Germany went towards the right direction, but it wouldn’t change the outcome.
So what is really the most important strategy in war? Quality? Or numbers and production.
but what wins war overall? @@brennanleadbetter9708
@jmgonzales7701 Honestly it pretty much depends on your countries’ situation. The Soviets built a crap ton of tanks to get to the battlefield quickly, but most of these were poorly made. The USSR had the men and resources to make that possible. The Americans were an ocean away from the war. They needed a tank that could be manufactured in large numbers while still being of good quality. They also needs a tank that could be shipped overseas in large numbers. That’s why they had the Sherman.
@jmgonzales7701 Like what I said about the Germans above, they focused on higher quality to try to save limited resources. But as the war progressed, their resource problems only grew. Especially when their factories are continuously bombed by the Allies. If Germany were to build more Pz. IVs they wouldn’t have enough fuel or men to operate them.
@@brennanleadbetter9708 i have heard that some would prefer the sherman due its simplicity and not to mention it was very customizable and can be fitted with almost everything. Thats why i was asking if production was the most important thing.
They were over complicated but not over engineered
No other country could have lasted as long as Germany with 2 frontlines. It's easy to speculate about why victory could not be achieved, no one else would have in the same situation.
With slave labor building your equipment you have to expect sabotage. Not to mention material shortages and improper metallurgy. Im actually amazed they lasted as long as they did.
As I understand it, the Germans compensated for their inability to build tank factories with the complexity of their equipment due to more manual labor.
Well when you fighting the whole world you have to make something more powerful and generally over complicated.
No gas, no repair parts, no armor plate (end of war) no ammunition, no crews, no food. Never in doubt regardless of a few changes.
Overlapping wheels and mud form a strong love bond🖤
While they were formidable tanks - the Tigers and Panthers were too expensive and too complicated to build in the numbers needed to stand up to the simpler but far more plentiful Allied Shermans and Soviet T-34s. While quality is important; quantity has a quality all its own. The Germans were thinking in terms of powerful armor divisions to spearhead what was essentially a large infantry/artillery army. The Soviets were thinking in terms of tank armies. Mass - thats what creates wallop. What the Germans really needed was a true 35 ton tank - powered by an air-cooled diesel engine, running on cheap, easily repaired or replaced leaf spring suspensions and armed with the KwK 42 or the 88. And they needed to turn those things out like hot rolls. They still would have lost the war but they might have prolonged it to avoid total disaster.
seeing a bunch of t34 positive comments, I’d like to point out that the tank was absolute garbage.
Great example for industrialists currying favor of Hitler to enrich themselves: Zimmerit (anti magnetic mine armor coating) was developed despite the fact that the Allies never used them and relied on different AT infantry weapons. Eventually, in late 1944 Germany stopped applying the coating as it was thought to be flammable and the cause of excess tank fires(highly unlikely).
Panther was a failure it was conceptualized as a medium(thirty ton) tank. It ballooned to 45 tons and the automotive components were incapable of standing up to the strain of a 50% weight gain.
Your wrong on the Panther! After the war when looking at Tanks the British an Americans saw the Panther as the basis of their tank programs good gun armour where you need it, As some wanted to go down the German road of heavier! Despite early teething problems at Kursk, by autumn 43 it was said to be fully Combat ready by Heinz Guderian himself! An after the war the French had a fair few of em an did a bit of testing an concluded the engine lasted above the combat life of the Vehicle,
@@rogercude1459 The British certainly didn’t as they had developed the Centurion tank and delivered it to Europe by April of 1945. The US had the M-26 that evolved into the M-46 Patton.
The French ran Panthers until 1950. They didn’t care for it that much. They had terrible times getting the final drives to last more than 150 km. The gunner’s lack of any view other than his powered optic sight was a huge complaint. Nick Moran(TheChieftan) summed up the French thoughts on Panther with the conclusion: “The French would not call Panther a strategic tank.”
WWII era tanks had to balance design with technology and getting the trifecta of armor, mobility and firepower was a holy grail type problem that was never achieved.
Panther had a great AT gun, and massive frontal armor. Its pathetic side armor and poor HE capabilities hampered it in urban and infantry combat.
If Panther was so awesome, why did it never replace the Panzer IV in Armored Divisions?
@rogercude1459 the Panther was not used to inspire future tank programs.
Zimmerit was developed precisely because the Germans DID use magnetic mines. They just assumed that everyone else would be as smart as them and make mines as complicated as possible instead of, you know, burying them in dirt and hoping an enemy tank drove over them.
Changing a transmission in Panther required removal of the turret. In the M4 Sherman, also front drive, was far easier - unbolt the transmission cover armor casting, pull it aside with crane, then remove & replace. Fixing a Russian T-34 - rear drive but just replace the tank comrade (hahaha).Don’t know details but probably involved removing bolts of rear deck & back plate.
Life of tank in combat: read somewhere the barrel life of the USA 75 mm M3 cannon was 10,000 rounds but how many tanks survived 10,000 rounds? 10,000 rounds would be approximately 100 full ammunition loads.
They were in reality underengineered with workarounds and ad hoc solutions due to underpowered engines and weight issues.
It wasn't so much that they were _underengineered_ as that they were designed to a configuration and then had design changes that kept increasing the vehicles' weight, without concern as to how the weight increase affected the other aspects of the vehicles. As the weight climbed, the engines had to work harder to move the tanks, and the transmission was under greater stress as a consequence. Since neither the engine nor the transmission were upgraded, this led to an increased rate of powertrain failures. And technological limitations contributed to the problems -- the Germans could not produce helical-toothed gears, so the Panther transmission used spur gears, which are simpler to produce but have a lower torque limit, and became subject to breaking gear teeth under the heavier load.
What irritates me to no end is that even in 2023 the old myth that german tanks were outclassed by russian tanks in 1941 when this is clearly not the case. The german army destroyed more t-34 and Kw-1 tanks than they had Panzer 4 and Panzer 3. So it is wrong to say they were outclassed or that they couldnt fight them.
One of the reason to build Panther and Tiger was that germany had no fuel and lacked the manpower to field many more tanks. Germans are not stupid and Hitler wasnt in most cases either. If you only have a finite amount of fuel and a finite amount of supplies you better make sure that you get the best equipment to make the best use of your limited ressources. If you have unlimited ressources you build the tank that gets the job done but is also easy to manufacture so that you have the most tanks possible.
If you are limited in fuel, ammo and manpower and you cant field as many tanks as you would like then you go for best equipment cause that may give you an advantage in a one on one.
13:40 don’t omit, the fact that the enigma code was broken giving the enemy a significant advantage. All is fair in love and war. Thus history so the truth is important
🇦🇺 Great video - a very fair assessment!
Glad you think so!
Overengineered means you designed and built it stronger than necessary (e.g., suspension built to carry 100 tons when your need is 50 tons). When you design it too complicated to build/repair/use, thats NOT overengineering, thats bad engineering.
You can either build something for the auto show or the demolition derby. Germany built for one while everyone else built for the other.
Panzer lV was a great tank, and that should have been the only one used, along with its variants.
Germany did not have the resources to support that.
Idk my dude the pnazer 4 could easily get knocked out by the IS 2 1944 version, this is why tank destroyers are needed
There is a massive difference between over engineered and over complicated
From that time up until now, there was no tank developed that is more beautiful and elegant like the Tiger!
Sherman & cromwell
Due to the war situation, vehicles in the prototype stage had to be used. The supply of strategic materials like molybdenum or rubber etc. was getting worse and worse. The gears, engines and even armor plates got worse and worse in quality due to the lack of these materials . Since the tanks were welded, experienced welders were required in production. This personal also became less and less available due to the draft. The result was a generally declining quality, which has nothing to do with the complexity but with the production possibilities of a country that did not have sufficient resources of critical materials and fuel and people to fight against half the world. Stupid decision.
All true, but the situation regarding workers is especially important. The answer to a shortage in workers when all the men are on the frontlines? Women! Hitler was against this by ideology, because they were meant to be baby factories, but was halfheartedly used after Stalingrad and the Total War policy. Ideology got in the way of sensible production and is often overlooked. Soldiers were stationed in Norway for years because of this and the admittedly very important iron ore supply, but it tied up numerous divisions. Even the SS battalions were less effective than the actual Wehrmacht, but they obviously got more resources. Not to mention the Holocaust, which bled resources. Unskilled slave labor hindered production too. There is a neat story of a slave laborer sabotaging 20mm explosive rounds for BF109s, which should have downed a bomber, and who replaced the secondary powder with messages saying something to the effect of “I hope this helps”.
Point being, you’re right. There were too numerous issues that plagued the war effort beyond repair. Thankfully. We’re fascinated by late war German, but they should have stuck with light reliable designs like the Panzer IV and Stug. Not perfect designs by any means, but neither were any of the allied tanks. Glad they didn’t though.
@@luvz2biteI have heard of that, the paper read "this is all we can do for you now..." Yarnhub made a video on it but I forget the title.
The “working towards the furher” attitude or whatever was a big hindrance too from what I’ve read and heard,it seems like a lot of people were over promising and probably knew they couldn’t deliver and then a couple guys were being honest and wasn’t promising the world and so who was Hitler supposed to believe? He listened to the yaps of course,just like anyone else would,but perhaps if they weren’t fighting to be the first one to kiss his butt and just kept things in perspective maybe their might have been a different outcome,idk
Yeah,this doesn’t have much to do with the video topic 🤷♂️
Seen plenty of ass kissing at work. I'd agree.
Hitler interfered in designs as well, and the designers had to try and meet the new demands lest they incur his anger. the panther was supposed to have even thinner armour then it did but Hitler wanted in thickened, Speer named it the panther as an attempt to remind hitler it was supposed to be agile and fast
WW2 nowadays fought with words online by those born after the conflict with weapons ended Europe 8-9/5/1945
The bottom line here is that Germany was outmatched by industrial might. The relative quality of the weapons was not a key factor
My fav comparison between German tank production and allied is think of the allied as Ford style assembly lines. In the case of the Tiger some parts were custom fitted for each individual tank. Think of the logistical nightmare a car company would have if every car they produced had to have custom parts ordered for each individual car. That's German over engineering in a nutshell.
As far as I know it's mostly a myth that German tanks were over-engineered, in particular when it comes to the late-war ones (Tiger, Tiger II, Panther). It seems instead like these tanks were pretty well-designed for easy manufacturing.
Comparing prices across the currencies, late-war German tanks look rather cheap.
- a Panther cost almost exactly the same as a Sherman, despite being a much more powerful tank.
- a Tiger 1 cost less than the initial model of the KV-1 and Centurion, despite (again) being a more powerful tank compared to the KV-1.
- a Tiger 2 was roughly 1/3rd more of the cost of an IS-2, which doesn't seem very expensive considering it's more powerful.
Here's whats the real kicker: Germany was running out of money. It was in an economic crisis. The Soviets could keep pouring resources into these tanks, and churn them out consistently. This is conflicted by many production test runs built by other companies that ended up losing, and crew shortages that weren't compatible with manpower loss. Experienced crews knew how to run the Tigers and Panthers, the inexperienced often abandoned their tanks hours after getting inside of them. And in a study of a German 105mm gun, it was discovered there were three times more parts than an American gun, with no immediate benefit to the gunner.
@@squeaky206 I'm sure there's many examples one can find of inferior German engineering. But when it comes to their tanks and them being over-engineered, it's not true if one compares their prices to contemporary tanks. The early tanks, like Pz III and IV, I've read were probably somewhat over-engineered and not optimal for mass-production, which made them expensive relative to their combat value. But for the tanks after those (Tiger, Tiger II, Panther, etc) it doesn't seem to be true at all.
I think Germany picked the best path for their tanks. There was no way they could out produce the USSR and then later the USA added to this made it even more impossible. I think this even justified absurd designs like the panzer VIII Maus, they needed something that would be invincible against a larger quantity of tanks. The problem with Germany in WW2 was they had too many enemies and not very good allies. Had they just not declared war on the USA, they wouldn't have lost in Africa, then Italy be invaded and surrender nor would they have helped the British with the Normandy landings. Their tank designs would've been ideal if they would've only had to focus on their main theater/campaign, the Eastern front. They were using their U-boats and Luftwaffe aircraft to subdue the British which was looking successful. Just my 2¢
they only out matched the allied tanks in armor and guns, allied tanks has the advantage of ease of maintenance, operation and often better mobility and off road operation, the M3 Sherman is the most under rated tank of ww2, its was so effective that the easy8 the was still able to go toe to toe with the T34/85 in Korea. The German best tanks over all were the panzer 3, panzer 4 and stug III, had they not wasted resources on panther, tigers and tiger 2s they would have had 4 times the amount of AFVs on the battle field, the Pak 40 guns on those tanks where more than capable of dealing with the bulk of allied tanks.
It was not really that, the problem the real one was resources, from materials to build them to the fuel to power them to the men to crew them, and Germany simply could not go on, I mean if they had replicator technology from Star Trek and automatons drones/T-600,700 800 X series as foot soldiers perhaps
The other problem was logistical incompetence shown by senior administration members, particularly the SS governers types, if during WW I Germany had more focused control of it during WW II it was partially functional
A proper ARV based on tiger or panther- would have done wonders- “ I forget the numbers -but something in the ballpark of over 60% we’re left on the battlefield with nothing more than minor damage.
Yeah your tripping. The Tiger ll was an awesome vehicle and the template for future tanks. Nothing about the vehicle was wrong (after teething) but the limited resources made the building of these "wrong"
Really? What modern tank uses a gasoline engine or the interleaved road wheel suspension? What modern tank has the engine in the rear and the drive wheels up front?
The proposition that German hardware was “superior” to allied materiel is a canard. What set their armor apart was simply large guns + thick armor. That’s it. None of the various iterations of their armor which became progressively larger and heavier stood the test of time or battlefield conditions. How often did Tigers or Panthers break down in the field? Very often. Hitler, with his phallic preoccupation, even countenanced the ridiculous Jagdtiger, a 75 ton behemoth which could hardly move a mile. Meanwhile, the Allies turned out far more materiel which was ultra reliable. That’s one big reason the war was won. And can it be said the Luftwaffe ended up with better planes? Yes, the ME 109 and Focke Wolffe were good, but better than the Spitfire, Mustang, Thunderbolt or Lightning? Nay.
Good feature, but why is it bad for a tank or any other weapon system (especially if its German), to be over-engineered. Many German tanks are criticized on RUclips and sometimes even classified as trash, just for the fact that they were deemed 'over-engineered'. I have recently watched a RUclips feature on the Boeing B-29 Superfortress where the narrator and Boeing aviation experts, admitted to the fact that the B-29 was over-engineered and ridden with faults, some of which remained un-rectified until the war's end. But there was no criticism of any kind by any of the narrators, the US bomber was lauded to the very end of the feature.
the panzer 3 and 4 were not germanies main tanks at the start of ww2, it was the panzer 1 and 2, and things like the marder
Be it a car or a tank, the Germans are know for over engineered products. It was of course no fun if a Tiger was shooting at you while you sat in a Sherman or Cromwell, even a T-34. But the most unhappy person in the crew of a Tiger was the guy that got to keep it running. The engine was over worked, the wheels were a pain to replace. You can fit more 75 mm ammo in a tank than 88 mm ammo. The Panther arrived prone to breaking down. The Tiger II was over loaded. They made impressive pillboxes though. Gas guzzling beasts. I'd rather be 1 of ten pzkw IVs on a battlefield, than 1 Tiger. Yes they had fuel problems. Too bad.
Late war tanks? Yes. Pre-war tanks? No.
any German car that I worked on are way over engineered the biggest downfall of that highly unreliable
best sights, steering etc tiger1 has power steering with little steering wheel.
Germany end the war without beeing able to build a proper tank. Even Tiger 2 in 1944 had two major drawbacks : Petrol engine and gearbox separated from engine !. Meanwhile KV1 was available since 1936, and KV2 in September 1941. They just replace the main gun and projectile. A KV1 projectile was 57 kg !
Thirty times the King Tiger is shown here but never mentioned. Do you even know it existed? The repair of tanks was an important factor which reduces the number of tanks available to Germany. Many of the tanks and mobile artillery that were available were captured designs, that were shown but again not mentioned. What was the intention of this presentation?
Actually the panzer 1 is the oldest tank
Uh how
@@brennanleadbetter9708 it came before the panzer 2 and was around during the Spanish civil war
@ryleeculla5570 but it is not the oldest tank. Are you forgetting about the tanks from WWI?
Excellent
Thanks
to know that WW2, could have been avoided, if the allied forces of WW1 did not seek revenge
Who was Major Ishews ?
These WWII tanks would like to be like the T-55 or the M-60! Any newer was more like 21st century armor!
Stalin was notorious for his interference with design and introduction of weapon systems.