Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Link Posted: 10/27/2013 5:35:53 AM EDT
[#1]


Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
 

Well as long as we're fantasizing, then make my Panthers more reliable too.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:





Quoted:




Quoted:


Crank out as many Panzer IVs with the long 75mm cannon as possible. Easily a match for the Sherman and T-34. Then crank out some Panthers to tackle the bigger Soviet tanks. Tigers were a waste of time & money.






lol @ tigers waste of time but you want one of the most unreliable tanks of WW2 to be cranked out?  (the panther)





lmao
I'd have:





Upgraded Tiger 2's that were reliable


Panther's that were reliable



Pz4's with as big a gun as I could reliably stuff in them with upgraded/sloped armor


Jagdpanther's that were reliable


Elefants


A few Jagdtiger's





 

Well as long as we're fantasizing, then make my Panthers more reliable too.





That's just it. They were great and could have been fantastic. But they
never standardized anything and improved them to their full potential.
Even when they had a good tank (or plane) that would have been amazing
with some further development, they would jump from that to the next
"wonder weapon" and have to start all over.





The US is criticized
by armchair warriors for building so many Shermans, but this was the
idea. It was good enough when it came out and then improved upon,
especially on the mass production side. The firefly versions were still
decent even at wars end. Thing is they were reliable, good enough in
their intended role and were somewhat easy to produce. Not to mention huge
inventories of spare parts that were on hand to keep existing ones
running.





Then there was the T-34. It was not the greatest, but it was good and there was a lot of
them. There were stories of them being driven right from the factory to
the front lines without even being painted, with no lights, lacking
fittings etc. Troops would take a broom and some limestone paint (white)
and slop some on when they got a chance.





The Germans wouldn't
anymore than field one complicated tank, then decide on building and entirely new
"better" one. This is why they had such a large array of cool looking
types of tanks and planes, but varity is not a good thing in wartime. It
had to be a logistical nightmare for armourers to keep any spare parts
for so many types. It was. So when a simple part broke, there was no
replacements all they could do was burn their precious tiger, king
tiger, panther, etc, cause it most likely was not going to get fixed.
Only a few dozen Tigers were rolling out of the factory each month.
Their losses do to breakdowns exceeded production.





This doesn't even take into account training crews for an entirely new tank or plane that was constantly being fielded.


Any
Russian or American tank crew could jump into any of their MB tanks and
know its operation. Not so when you field a dozen types. Again same
with planes.

 
 
Link Posted: 10/27/2013 5:38:53 AM EDT
[#2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



That's just it. They were great and could have been fantastic. But they never standardized anything and improved them to their full potential. Even when they had a good tank (or plane) that would have been amazing with some further development, they would jump from that to the next "wonder weapon" and have to start all over.

The US is criticized by armchair warriors for building so many Shermans, but this was the idea. It was good enough when it came out and then improved upon, especially on the mass production side. The firefly versions were still decent even at wars end. Thing is they were reliable, good enough in their intended role and were somewhat easy to produce. Not to mention huge inventories of spare parts that were on hand to keep existing ones running.

Then there was the T-34. It was not the greatest, but it was good and there was a lot of them. There were stories of them being driven right from the factory to the front lines without even being painted, with no lights, lacking fittings etc. Troops would take a broom and some limestone paint (white) and slop some on when they got a chance.

The Germans wouldn't anymore than field one complicated tank, then decide on building and entirely new "better" one. This is why they had such a large array of cool looking types of tanks and planes, but varity is not a good thing in wartime. It had to be a logistical nightmare for armourers to keep any spare parts for so many types. It was. So when a simple part broke, there was no replacements all they could do was burn their precious tiger, king tiger, panther, etc, cause it most likely was not going to get fixed. Only a few dozen Tigers were rolling out of the factory each month. Their losses do to breakdowns exceeded production.

This doesn't even take into account training crews for an entirely new tank or plane that was constantly being fielded.
Any Russian or American tank crew could jump into any of their MB tanks and know its operation. Not so when you field a dozen types. Again same with planes.    
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Crank out as many Panzer IVs with the long 75mm cannon as possible. Easily a match for the Sherman and T-34. Then crank out some Panthers to tackle the bigger Soviet tanks. Tigers were a waste of time & money.


lol @ tigers waste of time but you want one of the most unreliable tanks of WW2 to be cranked out?  (the panther)

lmao



I'd have:

Upgraded Tiger 2's that were reliable
Panther's that were reliable

Pz4's with as big a gun as I could reliably stuff in them with upgraded/sloped armor
Jagdpanther's that were reliable
Elefants
A few Jagdtiger's

  Well as long as we're fantasizing, then make my Panthers more reliable too.



That's just it. They were great and could have been fantastic. But they never standardized anything and improved them to their full potential. Even when they had a good tank (or plane) that would have been amazing with some further development, they would jump from that to the next "wonder weapon" and have to start all over.

The US is criticized by armchair warriors for building so many Shermans, but this was the idea. It was good enough when it came out and then improved upon, especially on the mass production side. The firefly versions were still decent even at wars end. Thing is they were reliable, good enough in their intended role and were somewhat easy to produce. Not to mention huge inventories of spare parts that were on hand to keep existing ones running.

Then there was the T-34. It was not the greatest, but it was good and there was a lot of them. There were stories of them being driven right from the factory to the front lines without even being painted, with no lights, lacking fittings etc. Troops would take a broom and some limestone paint (white) and slop some on when they got a chance.

The Germans wouldn't anymore than field one complicated tank, then decide on building and entirely new "better" one. This is why they had such a large array of cool looking types of tanks and planes, but varity is not a good thing in wartime. It had to be a logistical nightmare for armourers to keep any spare parts for so many types. It was. So when a simple part broke, there was no replacements all they could do was burn their precious tiger, king tiger, panther, etc, cause it most likely was not going to get fixed. Only a few dozen Tigers were rolling out of the factory each month. Their losses do to breakdowns exceeded production.

This doesn't even take into account training crews for an entirely new tank or plane that was constantly being fielded.
Any Russian or American tank crew could jump into any of their MB tanks and know its operation. Not so when you field a dozen types. Again same with planes.    



YEp,  I recall an interview with a German tanker talking about that.  He said that for every one tank they lost, the US lost ten...problem was there was always that 11th US tank.
Link Posted: 10/27/2013 5:43:36 AM EDT
[#3]










Link Posted: 10/27/2013 5:44:37 AM EDT
[#4]
Have to remember that resources were limited so quantity doesn't really work out for the Germans.  What ever is to be produced should have been coordinated between all the Axis nations in Europe along with combined training schools with proper rotation of combat vets as instructors.  

Tank: Panther   Best tank of WW2 although I have read of the amazing kills racked up by Tigers
Tank destroyer: Hetzer   This was built off an existing assembly line and wouldn't divert resources from the other armored vehicles however if standardization was necessary, I'd go with the Jagdpanther which is very sexy
Assault Gun: Stug III  Also built from an existing assembly line and my favorite assault gun
Link Posted: 10/27/2013 6:09:22 AM EDT
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Get a better commander for the Luftwaffe, and don't attack the Russians.  There was no problem with the hardware Germany had.
View Quote



This, basically.  Strategic issues lost the war,  not their hardware.  That war was lost before it was even started.  

Heck, if they attacked the soviets first everyone else would have just stood by and watched.
Link Posted: 10/27/2013 6:17:04 AM EDT
[#6]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


G model Panthers and Jagdpanthers, that's it.
View Quote


This.



 
Link Posted: 10/27/2013 6:21:36 AM EDT
[#7]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

This.
 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
G model Panthers and Jagdpanthers, that's it.

This.
 

Agree.

The Tigers used up too much resources for what was basically a defensive tank.  Cost effective vehicles would include the Hetzer, the Stug III, Wespe & Hummer & Nashorn (virtually the same vehicle but with different armament).
Link Posted: 10/27/2013 8:23:35 AM EDT
[#8]
*Medium tank/assault gun/tank killer
Panzer IV with the 75mm
StuG IV
(panzerkampfwagen chasis used for other specialized roles such as Flak. command)

*Light tank
Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer
(easy to produce)

*Heavy tank
concentrate on making something like the Jagdpanther reliable.

Bottom line to me seems like the germans would need to concentrate on streamlining tank production into fewer models, look at what could be produced quickly with resources available and getting massive numbers of tanks and crews into the field.
Link Posted: 10/27/2013 8:43:10 AM EDT
[#9]
Zints ich binn zee vun zat maken deeziden vas ve vill der bildenmaken:

Link Posted: 10/27/2013 8:59:16 AM EDT
[#10]
The problem with the German tanks, was that they were overly complicated and too highly maintenance intensive for the time. They should have done it like the US and Russians did. It didn't do them much good when half their tanks were in the shop or broken down in the field without the enemy even having to engage them.
Link Posted: 10/27/2013 9:03:52 AM EDT
[#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Panthers. Lots of Panthers.
View Quote
Armed with 88's instead of 75.
Link Posted: 10/27/2013 9:06:08 AM EDT
[#12]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Build T-34's. Tens of Thousands of T-34's. Quantity has a quality all its own...... And shoot that Sonofabitch Corporal right between the eyes in 1934 and be done with the whole thing.



View Quote

T-34's were not that good of a tank.  They worked well against Pnz 2's & and early model Pnz 3's, after that they were not a match and had many short comings.
Link Posted: 10/27/2013 9:08:52 AM EDT
[#13]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Armed with 88's instead of 75.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Panthers. Lots of Panthers.
Armed with 88's instead of 75.

Not sure the Panther could handle the 88 mm.
Link Posted: 10/27/2013 9:13:22 AM EDT
[#14]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Crank out as many Panzer IVs with the long 75mm cannon as possible. Easily a match for the Sherman and T-34. Then crank out some Panthers to tackle the bigger Soviet tanks. Tigers were a waste of time & money.
View Quote


This man gets it.  The Germans didn't have infinite materials and manufacturing capability.  Hitler's fantasy tanks were a hindrance to their war effort.  They had too many types fielded that were too expensive to build.  

They would have still lost in the end, but by consolidating to a single type that they could manufacture relatively inexpensively they would have held on longer.  And the post war lines between the east and the west might have looked a bit more favorable.


ETA:  GI-45 wrote Panzer IV but my brain read Panther.  What he said, but substitute Panther for Panzer IV.  I believe they about the same cost to manufacture later in the war and the Panther was more capable.




Link Posted: 10/27/2013 9:18:31 AM EDT
[#15]
T-34s built with German steel and QC and equipped with radios would have been pretty good tanks. They lost 45,000 of the damn things coz they were built like Chinese tools.

They still would have been ridiculously cramped and hard to fight though.


The Germans always looking for the next wonder weapon while ignoring promising leads due to politic reasons really hurt them. They could have made the Heinkel 280 a decent fighter by the end of 1942 had they not been so stubborn. They could have ironed the BMW 003 into a decent enough engine with some effort,and it might even have led to the Me 162 earlier,which according to Eric Brown would have been a great fighter.


Putting the country on a war economy might have made it possible to build enough IVs and Stugs to blunt the first Russian counteroffensives but really I think the most blame has to go to being allied with the Italians. The Balkans and Desert very likely siphoned off what could have tipped the scales in the easy,even with exactly what they had for equipment. Those additional half a million men wouldn't have gone unnoticed.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 10/27/2013 2:10:17 PM EDT
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Get a better commander for the Luftwaffe, and don't attack the Russians.  There was no problem with the hardware Germany had.
View Quote



........................................................................................wat.
Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top