Tiger II: Waste of Resources yes or no

[Xanthro]

the facts are that the Germans valued their men MUCH more than the Russians.

Yeah, we can tell that by the failure of German designers to produce a single tank (except Tiger I and II) whose lower hull sides were immune to the 14.5mm PTRD anti-tank rifle at under a hundred meters.
Or, for that matter, having the supreme arrogance to believe that the Panzer III and IV were better than anything the Soviets could produce.
Oh, and what about those PZ. I's and II's that started off Barbarosa? And, by the way, have you ever noticed the crew protection on the Marder series, or the Nashorn series? Hey, great idea having an open top and 15-20mm of steel protecting a crew in winter!!!
On a tactical level, how many Panzer Divisions were thrown into battle until they were down to their last tank or last five or six tanks?
Forget it, the Ostfront was a meatgrinder and both sides provided the meat with the lack of conscience typical of a totalitarian state.

Cheers,
~D

But look at the escape hatches on all those tanks you mention.

The Germans tended toward either heavy armor fewer escape methods, or lighter armor better escape. Either way, crew protection was an important consideration.

German doctrine stressed crew protection, it's why training on how to quickly stop and fire was practiced so much, especially in the earlier years.

The Pz III is no match in terms of gun and armor to the T-34/76, but the Pz III usually came out ahead in the beginning of the war, as long as the Pz III could move.

In the lighter armored tanks, the Germans considered mobility to be very important to crew survival.

Xanthro

[David C. Clarke]

But look at the escape hatches on all those tanks you mention.

The Germans tended toward either heavy armor fewer escape methods, or lighter armor better escape. Either way, crew protection was an important consideration.

Xanthro, I disagree that this was a design consideration with the Germans. The entire object of the Marder and Nashorn series was to put as big a gun on a motorized chasis as possible. The crew compartments were protected only against small arms, nothing more.
As for escape hatchs, T-34/85 had an escape hatch under the hull machine gunner's seat which I believe it inherited from T-34/76.

But my central point is this--all nations attempt to make their tanks survivable, for obvious reasons. However, when the situation gets desperate, survivability becomes a secondary consideration. The Germans proved this to be so when they tacked a 76.2 mm gun on an old Panzer II chassis, called it a "Marder" and sent it into battle.
And you can't argue that because later German panzerjager had better armor that the Germans suddenly began worrying about their crews again. That's not what drives armor designers, it's the threat that matters.

Best Regards, David

[Brumbarr]

At least from this one article, the Allies seemed more impressed by the Jagdpanther, although confused about its purpose:

http://www.lonesentry.com/new88mm/index.html

[David C. Clarke]

Nice link Brumbarr!
I must admit that I love the way the Jagdpanther looked! OH! What a magnificent cat!!

Oh well, back to being a Soviet Tank Fanatic until someone shows me a Hetzer....

Best Regards,
David

[Mark V]

No offense, but you would have doomed Germany with such a tank.

I though the Germany was doomed already... But i must thank you for giving such high "value" for my tank.

First, you are eliminating the Radio operator. Which also eliminates your hull gunner, and the set of eyes that spotted for the starboard front quarter.

Hull MG, which was in most cases not much of use.

Germans had an advantage in spotting because they had more crew that could spot. German tactical doctrine relied on this. The first shot is key..

German had more crew compared to what in late war ??

T-34/85 - 5 man crew
Sherman - 5 man crew

What German tank had 6-man crew ?? (other than Jagdtiger, or maybe Sturmtiger)

... i guess you are messing things with early war period when German really had an sighting advantage, but if you think that it was because hull machinegunner / radio operator you are way wrong. It was because Germans were first to understand that tanks need commander, and supplied him with good optics and in many cases an override to turret traverse - that is the sighting advantage Germans had.

Hull MG position is low in the hull, and you can see maybe 50 degrees sector out from there depending on what direction tank is going - commander can sight from a 1 metre higher position to 360 degrees sector. Can you see the difference ??

You'd have to change Germany training and doctrine in order to even operate your new tank.

Aren't you a bit exaggerating here ?? I guess it would mean much lesser change than it was when Pzkw II was changed to Pzkw III.

Plus, who's going to man the radio? Radio is key to coordination, no radio operator no radio communication in the heat of battle. Another German advantage thrown away.

By late-war most of the radio communications was done by voice, straight from commander of tank to company commander in one channel. Where is the need for separate radio operator in tanks other than command tanks ?? (and BTW German radios did work very reliably - there wasn't need a man to all the time pray beside the radio that it would function properly)

Now, let's discuss effectively. There is a huge difference betweew what the Germans accepted as effective and what the Soviets did.

The Soviets were more than willing to sacrifice both rate of fire and number of rounds carried for armored protection. The Germans weren't. Being outnumbered means you have to carry more rounds, it means you need to fire more often. This requires a larger turret..

Well - are not going to squeeze 122mm to 45 ton tank, but 88mm (high-velocity i admit) to 50 ton tank, would suppose it is easier.

BTW. If you are seriously saying that the larger ammunition capacity was because Germans had larger turret than other nations tanks - i'll give up - you don't know anything about ammo storages of tanks and apparently are not willing to learn either...

Why the hang up on rear wheel drive? While there are advantages, transmission and shifting is MUCH MUCH harder with rear drive than front drive.

Would think that German engineering would easily overcome the problem - after all they got it right with VW Beetle

While it makes the tank abit more cramped, because the drive shaft runs in the middle of the tank, since stations are on ether side, it's not a big deal. The only possible increase to tank height would be to the turret, because the turrent cage couldn't go as far down. As far as I know, this was never an issue. German turrets being their height because of other issues.

A bit more cramped ?? Seriously - an rear engined / rear driven tank is an magnitude more effective in it's use of internal space.

It is fact that Germans were totally ineffective in their use of internal space. Propably Russians tried to squeeze even a bit more than was practical in their designs, but they were on the right way. It is no use of making 70 tons monsters if you can have the same battle perfomance from considerably lower overall weight without sacrificing the protection.

Interesting fact is that if you look any modern battle tank, you would find all those totally condemned and childlish ideas of mine in practice...


Mark V

[haa]

Mark V,

I am sorry but your Panzer 46' concept vehicle only works for me after a few pints at the local pub. I am sure someone like Jentz were there to hear the concept, we would all laugh together and buy the next round for you.

You really can't take questions alternative history this serious,

Haa

[KampfgruppeMeyer]

don't want to argue with the moderator, but i disagree with clark. the german tanks you speak of were early designs. and were pretty much designed and produced under the unfair treaty of versailles. the germans did not have many resources at this time. however, the later panther and tiger tanks represent light years of improvement once those resources became available. Xanthro is right.

American tanks continue the German traditions.

[KampfgruppeMeyer]

But look at the escape hatches on all those tanks you mention.

The Germans tended toward either heavy armor fewer escape methods, or lighter armor better escape. Either way, crew protection was an important consideration.

Xanthro, I disagree that this was a design consideration with the Germans. The entire object of the Marder and Nashorn series was to put as big a gun on a motorized chasis as possible. The crew compartments were protected only against small arms, nothing more.
As for escape hatchs, T-34/85 had an escape hatch under the hull machine gunner's seat which I believe it inherited from T-34/76.

But my central point is this--all nations attempt to make their tanks survivable, for obvious reasons. However, when the situation gets desperate, survivability becomes a secondary consideration. The Germans proved this to be so when they tacked a 76.2 mm gun on an old Panzer II chassis, called it a "Marder" and sent it into battle.
And you can't argue that because later German panzerjager had better armor that the Germans suddenly began worrying about their crews again. That's not what drives armor designers, it's the threat that matters.

Best Regards, David

The marder and Nashorn were hunter killers/sp anti tank guns. at least they were the last time i checked. i think Xanthro is refereing to tanks like the Tiger and Panther.

[Paul Lakowski]

Well in my opinion, Tiger-1 & II were a complete waste of money and resources...mind you I think the whole german tank program was a mess from 1942 on!

Just at the time when they needed quantity over quality they made a fatal reversal and this may have cost them the war...along with half a dozen strategic blunders.

Sherman and T-34 are generally recognised to be the best tanks of the war due to there operational/strategic superiority over the german tanks. YOu don't win wars by being tactically superior, but by being operationally superior.

To me the german tank program departed from a winning strategy when they abandoned the 30 ton Panther and went to the 45 ton Panther ...the first of a string of blunders.

Maybe the US could have made a 45 ton medium tank work in the context of a well oiled warmachine, but the Wehrmacht was in no position to compete one for one against the Sovs with tanks that heavy!

[KampfgruppeMeyer]

YOu don't win wars by being tactically superior, but by being operationally superior.

lol

[Xanthro]

But look at the escape hatches on all those tanks you mention.

The Germans tended toward either heavy armor fewer escape methods, or lighter armor better escape. Either way, crew protection was an important consideration.

Xanthro, I disagree that this was a design consideration with the Germans. The entire object of the Marder and Nashorn series was to put as big a gun on a motorized chasis as possible. The crew compartments were protected only against small arms, nothing more.
As for escape hatchs, T-34/85 had an escape hatch under the hull machine gunner's seat which I believe it inherited from T-34/76.

But my central point is this--all nations attempt to make their tanks survivable, for obvious reasons. However, when the situation gets desperate, survivability becomes a secondary consideration. The Germans proved this to be so when they tacked a 76.2 mm gun on an old Panzer II chassis, called it a "Marder" and sent it into battle.
And you can't argue that because later German panzerjager had better armor that the Germans suddenly began worrying about their crews again. That's not what drives armor designers, it's the threat that matters.

Best Regards, David

Those aren't tanks though.

Marders and Nashorns aren't tanks, they are anti-tank guns simply made mobile by putting them on an otherwise unused chasis.

When time permitted, better protection was part of the design. A Marder has more protection than the simple towed anti-tank gun it was meant to replace.

All sides tried to protect tank crews with escape hatches, but the Soviets placed the least emphasis on this out of the Germans, Americans and Soviets.

My point is that in the designing of a tank, national philosphy counts. A Soviet tank is more compact for its armor protection, because the Soviets were willing to make the compromises needed for such a vehicle.

Xanthro

[KampfgruppeMeyer]

Those aren't tanks though.

Marders and Nashorns aren't tanks, they are anti-tank guns simply made mobile by putting them on an otherwise unused chasis.

When time permitted, better protection was part of the design. A Marder has more protection than the simple towed anti-tank gun it was meant to replace.

All sides tried to protect tank crews with escape hatches, but the Soviets placed the least emphasis on this out of the Germans, Americans and Soviets.

My point is that in the designing of a tank, national philosphy counts. A Soviet tank is more compact for its armor protection, because the Soviets were willing to make the compromises needed for such a vehicle.

Xanthro

factually and historically correct.

[Scott Smith]

Even if the Germans had copied the Sherman or the T-34 bolt-by-bolt to maximize numbers it would not have helped them on the battlefield. There is no way that they would be able to match the output of the Soviets or the Americans so they had to go for quality. Knowing what we know now about what worked I think the Tiger I was a good bet as a heavy was needed asap. The Panther was a good bet too, despite a long time in development. But the Tiger II was a waste that should have gone into Jagdpanthers and Panthers and done a number on the enemy. But until these were ready for mass production the focus should have been on Pz IVs and StuGs, with an occasional Tiger I for elite units. No, it would not have won the war for Germany. Not even an atomic bomb or two would likely have done that.

[Xanthro]

No offense, but you would have doomed Germany with such a tank.

I though the Germany was doomed already... But i must thank you for giving such high "value" for my tank.

Only giving your tank the marks it deserves.

First, you are eliminating the Radio operator. Which also eliminates your hull gunner, and the set of eyes that spotted for the starboard front quarter.

Hull MG, which was in most cases not much of use.

Hull machinegun, not much use. I suppose that's why the Germans continued to add them to late war tanks, even if they were part of the original design, such as on the Panther.

Notice the specific reference to the spotter to the starboard front quarter?

I guess you missed it. A job of the radio operator/hull machine gunner was to spot in this area. He was also the assist. Loader.

Germans had an advantage in spotting because they had more crew that could spot. German tactical doctrine relied on this. The first shot is key..

German had more crew compared to what in late war ??

T-34/85 - 5 man crew
Sherman - 5 man crew
What German tank had 6-man crew ?? (other than Jagdtiger, or maybe Sturmtiger)

Before you get snotty, make sure you've read what you are replying too, lest you make yourself look foolish.

more crew that could spot.

Since you had difficulties, I took the liberty of bolding the term.

See, I didn't say German tanks had more MEN, I said they had more men that could SPOT.

Have you never compared Soviet and German WWII tanks? Late war German tanks have periscopes for the hull machinegunner, most Soviet tanks lack the ability of the radio operator to spot except for the front of the tank via the machine gun site.

... i guess you are messing things with early war period when German really had an sighting advantage, but if you think that it was because hull machinegunner / radio operator you are way wrong. It was because Germans were first to understand that tanks need commander, and supplied him with good optics and in many cases an override to turret traverse - that is the sighting advantage Germans had.

You show an incredible lack of understanding of German tank doctrine. The crew acted in unison. The commander took all the information and had the primary task of deciding based on this information what action to take.

He wasn't burdened with being the gunner, or having to do all the spoting. Decision making is the job of the commander.

All the crew spotted on German tanks.

Hull MG position is low in the hull, and you can see maybe 50 degrees sector out from there depending on what direction tank is going - commander can sight from a 1 metre higher position to 360 degrees sector. Can you see the difference ??

You've really never noticed the periscopes angled to the right that allow the hull gunner to cover his quadrant when buttoned up?

Go look at a Panther or Tiger II. It unfair to be arguing with someone who appears to have never actually seen a tank.
:roll:

You'd have to change Germany training and doctrine in order to even operate your new tank.

Aren't you a bit exaggerating here ?? I guess it would mean much lesser change than it was when Pzkw II was changed to Pzkw III.

Neither the Pz I nor Pz II were used in wartime German tactical doctrine, they were interims solutions so that the doctrine could be developed and crews trained.

While some were used in combat, this is because the tanks designed to fight the type of armored warfare Germany envisioned weren't available. Other uses were as a replacement for an armored car, such as the Lynchs.

By the time the KT was built, the Germans had years of their doctrine under their belts, you would just have them throw that away.

Plus, who's going to man the radio? Radio is key to coordination, no radio operator no radio communication in the heat of battle. Another German advantage thrown away.

By late-war most of the radio communications was done by voice, straight from commander of tank to company commander in one channel. Where is the need for separate radio operator in tanks other than command tanks ?? (and BTW German radios did work very reliably - there wasn't need a man to all the time pray beside the radio that it would function properly)

Computers are reliable, yet we have support staff to maintain them. That must just strike you as very odd.

Maybe you are young, and can't remember a time when there weren't remote controls, or even digital controls. Radios were reliable in the sense they worked, but you still had to tune into a channel by hand. Traveling and movement changes your signal, and it was the job of the radio operator to keep this in tune.

Plus, all communication isn't with tanks. Quite often, you'd have to radio back to headquarters in the middle of battle, in order to determine whether or not that tank is friend or foe.

The commander isn't going to climb down and start turning knobs to get to the proper channel, unless of course he's commanding your tank.

Now, let's discuss effectively. There is a huge difference betweew what the Germans accepted as effective and what the Soviets did.

The Soviets were more than willing to sacrifice both rate of fire and number of rounds carried for armored protection. The Germans weren't. Being outnumbered means you have to carry more rounds, it means you need to fire more often. This requires a larger turret..

Well - are not going to squeeze 122mm to 45 ton tank, but 88mm (high-velocity i admit) to 50 ton tank, would suppose it is easier.

BTW. If you are seriously saying that the larger ammunition capacity was because Germans had larger turret than other nations tanks - i'll give up - you don't know anything about ammo storages of tanks and apparently are not willing to learn either...

The length of the shell is as important as the width. The 88 fired by the KT is long, very long. It requires a long turret in order to have room to move the round into the breech. The turrent cannot be shorter than the internal length of the gun plus the length of the round.

You need to either stop trying to be condescending or learn to read better. Take your choice.

Larger turrets have better rates of fire, because there is more room for the crew, there is more room for ready storage of rounds. Hull stored rounds are much slower.

Of course, one would think you'd know that.

Why the hang up on rear wheel drive? While there are advantages, transmission and shifting is MUCH MUCH harder with rear drive than front drive.

Would think that German engineering would easily overcome the problem - after all they got it right with VW Beetle

Let's see, if it were so easy and it was better, why didn't they do it? You think it just simply esacped their minds?

No, it didn't. There are advantages and disadvantages to both front and rear drives on tanks. The Germans CHOOSE front drive for its advantages.

While it makes the tank abit more cramped, because the drive shaft runs in the middle of the tank, since stations are on ether side, it's not a big deal. The only possible increase to tank height would be to the turret, because the turrent cage couldn't go as far down. As far as I know, this was never an issue. German turrets being their height because of other issues.

A bit more cramped ?? Seriously - an rear engined / rear driven tank is an magnitude more effective in it's use of internal space.

No, it's not a magnitude more cramped. You have the same amount of room, it's simply layed out differently.

A front drive has the transmission in the front. This not only makes changing gears easier, it makes working on the transmission easier.

You still have a transmission on a rear drive tank, but now you have instead of the drive shaft, you have a shifting shaft running the length of the tank, and pushing the crew compartment forward. Same amount of room, only the front layout is more centered, and the transmission provides some protection for penetrating hits.

It is fact that Germans were totally ineffective in their use of internal space. Propably Russians tried to squeeze even a bit more than was practical in their designs, but they were on the right way. It is no use of making 70 tons monsters if you can have the same battle perfomance from considerably lower overall weight without sacrificing the protection.

The totally ineffective is your opinion, which seems to be based on fantasy.

The Germans in WWII were incapable of building a much lower weight tank without sacrificing either armor, rate of fire, or ammo storage.

Interesting fact is that if you look any modern battle tank, you would find all those totally condemned and childlish ideas of mine in practice...

Wow, what an argument.

I give up, the Germans should have built a nuclear powered Navy and just ruled the seas. And their tanks should have had reactive armor too, and computer guided gyroscopes, and thermal imaging.

You need to learn to diferreniate between what is possible for the Germans during the late war years and what is possible today.

They are not the same.

Sure if you could take modern technology, modern ideas, and the resources available in peacetime, you'd build a different tank, but that's not the situation the Germans faced in 1943-1945.

Xanthro

[Qvist]

Just some general thoughts on this subject.

1. I think Scott hits the nail on the head when he points out that a maximum weight on production numbers would not have been a rational policy for Germany to pursue. They were doomed to lose the numbers race, beyond any possibility whatsoever of remedy. The only thing that could conceivably compensate at least partly for this was superior quality.

2. Tank economy is as much about survivability as production figures. It is as well to produce 1000 tanks of which 500 are lost over a given period as to produce 2000 of which 1500 are lost. In fact, it is probably better.

3. I would think vehicles like the Marder II represent more a stopgap solution to emergency problems than a conscious design philosophy or a valid reflection of the degree of concern for crews. Sometimes, any solution is a good solution.

4. I don't think it is possible to disagree with the view that it is a questionable proposition whether the Tiger I and II justified the considerable expense and resources put into their production. But I do not think the conclusion is self-evident. Bearing in mind the context in which they were developed and produced, the thinking makes some sense. There was clearly a tactical need for a "breakthrough tank", and the Tiger did after all aquit itself well both in this role and in the more defensive role which it was subesequently forced by events to assume.

5. I firmly believe that no aspect of tank design was of sufficient importance to fundamentally affect the course of the war.

cheers