Some minor things about the tanks.

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Freikorps, Reichswehr, Austrian Bundesheer, Heer, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm and Fallschirmjäger and the other Luftwaffe ground forces. Hosted by Christoph Awender.
User avatar
houndie
Member
Posts: 151
Joined: 01 May 2002 22:51
Location: Estonia, Europe

Some minor things about the tanks.

Post by houndie » 03 May 2002 15:48

Ok, because i, as a rookie, am not the most patient one of them all, i decided, instead of observing the site for months, to tell some facts and see, how many people would react to it badly and how many would be with me. That means, how many have their heads brainwashed with anti-german propaganda and how many are more pro-german. I tend to like the nazi side more than the allied (i am not neonazi, i am more for the nazis when reading books instead of being for the soviets)

The Wehrmacht (german army) wasn't the greatest army of the world, it had no chance of winning the war. The main reasons were the numbers of infantry and the quality and numbers of the tanks. let me talk about the starting positions...
On the germans side, there were 3 000 tanks, 1000 of the tanks were Panzer I
on the Russian side, there were 28 000 tanks (9 x more), I think most of them were T-34 type, which were medium on usual standards, but compared to Panzer I they were very powerful. Of course there are specialists out in the Thirdreichforum, who will just see, that every normal person know all of that. But for the rookies and the ones, who don't have a very clear impression of how different these tanks powers were, i will tell you all of a situation.
In Russia, a german force was being very bothered by a t-34. When they were through with the tank, it destroyed 60 Panzer I's! and they didn't even fully destroy the damn T-34, their bullets didn't penetrate it.

Ok, any comments and try to avoid pointless flaming, i am still a rookie and don't know much about the war, just bits and pieces..
War is a matter of vital importance to the state. Hence, it is imperative that it be studied thoroughly - sun tzu
The truth of world war should be documented and it should not be treated as nazi propaganda.

User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002 22:35
Location: Europe

Post by Marcus » 03 May 2002 16:41

Welcome to the forum.

/Marcus

Timo
Member
Posts: 3869
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 22:09
Location: Europe

Post by Timo » 03 May 2002 17:47

Hallo Houndie,

Well, without flaming and no offense, your post makes no sense. For a start, what are your sources and whats your timeframe?

On the germans side, there were 3 000 tanks, 1000 of the tanks were Panzer I
on the Russian side, there were 28 000 tanks (9 x more), I think most of them were T-34 type, which were medium on usual standards, but compared to Panzer I they were very powerful.


On 22 June 1941, the start of operation Barbarossa, the number of German Panzers was:

- 877 Panzer I
- 1074 Panzer II
- 170 Panzer 35t
- 754 Panzer 38t
- 350 Panzer III (3.7cm)
- 1090 Panzer III (5cm)
- 517 Panzer IV
- 330 Panzer Befehlswagen

Thus we have 5162 Panzer, of which 877 were Panzer I. Thats 16 percent. As the war moved on from then on, the number of Panzer I decreased because it was long out of production.

At that same time, 22 June 1941, the Russian armed forces had to rely on T26, T28, T35, etc. The T34 was in production but only a few were in service at that time.

In Russia, a german force was being very bothered by a t-34. When they were through with the tank, it destroyed 60 Panzer I's! and they didn't even fully destroy the damn T-34, their bullets didn't penetrate it.


Well, given the fact that a Panzer I is armed with two machine guns, that is hardly a surprise. But Where did 60 Panzer I come from? Of all Panzer-Divisions involved in Barbarossa, the maximum number of Panzer I in a Division was 44 (20.Panzer-Division), but most had less or none. And even if it was 44 or less instead of 60, why would they combine all their platoons with Panzer I to take out one tank, and leave out all other types? A typical Company contained Panzer I, II and III. A medium company had Panzer II and IV. To use all Panzer I in a Division, this means that the whole Panzer-Regiment was waiting and was sending forward all Panzer I they had in their various companies, without realizing that its no use and without using heavier tanks. Now to get 60 Panzer I up front they had to combine two Panzer-Divisions. A bit strange.

Note that of 877 Panzer I available in the German army, only some saw action in those first weeks.
Here are some figures for 22 June 1941:

1.Panzer-Division had no Panzer I;
3.Panzer-Division had no Panzer I;
4.Panzer-Division had no Panzer I;
6.Panzer-Division had no Panzer I;
7.Panzer-Division had no Panzer I;
8.Panzer-Division had no Panzer I;
9.Panzer-Division had 8 Panzer I;
10.Panzer-Division had no Panzer I;
11.Panzer-Division had no Panzer I;
12.Panzer-Division had 40 Panzer I;
13.Panzer-Division had no Panzer I;
14.Panzer-Division had no Panzer I;
16.Panzer-Division had no Panzer I;
17.Panzer-Division had 12 Panzer I;
18.Panzer-Division had 6 Panzer I;
19.Panzer-Division had 42 Panzer I;
20.Panzer-Division had 44 Panzer I.

According to status reports for 10 September 1941, most Panzer-Divisions had Panzer I listed (for example 11 in 1.Panzer-Division), but these were Befehlspanzer I counted as Panzer I as they were mechanically the same. Due to this, the 19.Panzer-Division had 53 Panzer I listed and the 20.Panzer-Division 55 at the start of the campaign. This is the combined number of Panzer I and Befehlspanzer I.

None of the Divisions listed as send to the front after the campaign started (upto June 1942) have Panzer I listed.

Hope this helps.

Just my 2 cents,
Timo

Xanthro
Member
Posts: 2803
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 00:11
Location: Pasadena, CA

Post by Xanthro » 03 May 2002 18:12

I have to agree with Timo, the orginal information given in this post doesn't add up. Not only were PzIs mostly used for recon, there were very few of them available for combat. When they were used for combat, it was in either a recon role, or as a replacement for a armored car.

Also, the T-34 was in scarce supply at the start of the battle. The main Soviet tank force was BT-5s and BT-7s. These tanks are inferior to the PzIII that they faced. Plus, the training of the crews and the tactics used negated any numerical advantage they had.

It wasn't until the fall and winter that the T-34 really began to have an impact. While there were battles with these tanks and the KV-1 previous to this, the real superiority of the Soviet tanks didn't become apparent until the were moving while German tanks were stranded because of mud and cold.

By then, the German had already made numerous mistakes that likely cost them the war.

Xanthro

Timo
Member
Posts: 3869
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 22:09
Location: Europe

Post by Timo » 03 May 2002 18:23

For those interested:

The Germans fielded 3370 Panzer of all types on 22 June 1941, out of 5162 available Panzer.

They fielded 152 Panzer I, out of 877 available. They were issued as the number of Panzer II available was not sufficient.

877 out of 5162 is 16 percent. Houndies figure of 3000 is close to the fielded 3370 Panzer. But 152 Panzer I instead of 1000 makes a difference. 4.5 percent of 3370 instead of 33.3 percent (1000 out of 3000).

The combined number of Panzer I and Befehlspanzer I fielded on 22 June 1941 (according to the mentioned strenght report of 10 September 1941) was 337. Exactly 10 percent of 3370 :) Of these 337 the Panzer-Divisions had lost (totalausfal) 172 by 10 September 1941. Probabely also Panzerjäger I (4.7cm) losses are included in this number.
For the Divisions with a huge number of Panzer I at the start of the campaign, these are the losses:

12.Panzer-Division started with 51 based on the Panzer I chassis, 40 of them actual Panzer I. On 26 August 42 of them are reported as lost, 2 in repair and 7 operational.

19.Panzer-Division started with 53 based on the Panzer I chassis, 42 of them actual Panzer I. On 25 August 47 of them are reported as lost, 0 in repair and 6 operational.

20.Panzer-Division started with 55 based on the Panzer I chassis, 44 of them actual Panzer I. On 25 August 51 of them are reported as lost, 0 in repair and 4 operational.

None of the Panzer-Divisions received Panzer I as replacements.

Regards,
Timo

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Quantity and condition of tanks in Red Army

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 03 May 2002 18:46


User avatar
houndie
Member
Posts: 151
Joined: 01 May 2002 22:51
Location: Estonia, Europe

sorry for that..

Post by houndie » 05 May 2002 12:53

Actually, I hoped i remembered the info, i received. I didn't remember it quite as good as i could have. The number of the german tanks was too wrong, but at least the number of Panzer I's is almost true (not very close, but almost) and the number of the russian tanks in the war (xcept for T-34, but others couldn't have been much worse). I heard about the destruction of the 60 tanks (ok, who am i kidding, Panzer I's) from another guy, a teacher, who's been interested in WWII for some decades now and he remembers most of the info he has. The sad thing is, i don't. This tells me one thing: I should always check the data at least three times, before i start telling it to people. Sorry and hope i didn't leave the impression of an idiot too much.

Sincerely, houndie..
War is a matter of vital importance to the state. Hence, it is imperative that it be studied thoroughly - sun tzu
The truth of world war should be documented and it should not be treated as nazi propaganda.

Timo
Member
Posts: 3869
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 22:09
Location: Europe

Post by Timo » 05 May 2002 13:02

No problem Houndie, hope we did not scare you away with our replies.

Regards,
Timo

Chief Whip
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 27 Apr 2002 16:16
Location: EU

Re: sorry for that..

Post by Chief Whip » 05 May 2002 13:04

Hey houndie, cheer up! You got numbers wrong - so what? Historical insight, as you showed proof of, weighs much heavier than entire books filled with numbers together! You just need to go through more decent books in order to get to know the more exact facts and gain more insight, but that's all a matter of time. Rome wasn't built in one day you know. :wink:

Bjorn
Member
Posts: 130
Joined: 25 Apr 2002 06:44
Location: Canada

Post by Bjorn » 05 May 2002 19:30

The German army was called the Heer, not the Wehrmacht. The Wehrmacht was the German fighting forces not to include the SS.

In other words, the Luftwaffe, the Kreigsmarine, and the Heer were all members of the Wehrmacht. The Waffen SS wasnt.

User avatar
houndie
Member
Posts: 151
Joined: 01 May 2002 22:51
Location: Estonia, Europe

..

Post by houndie » 07 May 2002 22:39

What i meant by wehrmacht being the german army was every tank, every ship, every plane and every troop were members of wehrmacht. Wrong use of the word army, don't get me wrong, the point of it was clear.

Chief whip, you don't have 2 be so encouraging, i wasn't crying, when i wrote the post. I was just thinking, how important the first impression was and thinking i gave the wrong one, i wasn't happy, but not too sad either. There are a lot of fishes out in the sea (fishes being II world war forums, sea being internet), but i won't settle with another for now...
War is a matter of vital importance to the state. Hence, it is imperative that it be studied thoroughly - sun tzu
The truth of world war should be documented and it should not be treated as nazi propaganda.

User avatar
Starinov
Member
Posts: 1490
Joined: 18 Apr 2002 16:29
Location: Québec, Canada.

Post by Starinov » 08 May 2002 13:49

Bjorn wrote:The German army was called the Heer, not the Wehrmacht. The Wehrmacht was the German fighting forces not to include the SS.

In other words, the Luftwaffe, the Kreigsmarine, and the Heer were all members of the Wehrmacht. The Waffen SS wasnt.


I thought the Waffen-SS was the "fourth" branch of the Wehrmacht since all Waffen-SS soldiers were under the command of the OKW during all WWII.

Alex F.
Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 02 May 2002 16:33
Location: USA

Post by Alex F. » 08 May 2002 15:26

Jeez, imagine having to crew one of those Panzer 1s!! Talk about a ripoff... all your friends are in tanks with cannon, and you have two machineguns... thanks VERY much!

Hahah.. Not a happy place for the German tanker, that's for sure.

DR

Timo
Member
Posts: 3869
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 22:09
Location: Europe

Post by Timo » 08 May 2002 15:53

DarkRipper wrote:Jeez, imagine having to crew one of those Panzer 1s!! Talk about a ripoff... all your friends are in tanks with cannon, and you have two machineguns... thanks VERY much!

Hahah.. Not a happy place for the German tanker, that's for sure.

DR


Look at it from the "bright side": The Panzer I tanks were not likely to be used as spearhead, just for some screening and support roles. Besides that, most enemy encounters were with infantry. 2 machine guns are quite sufficient is such cases.

Regards,
Timo

Alex F.
Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 02 May 2002 16:33
Location: USA

Post by Alex F. » 08 May 2002 16:06

True, the beginning of Barbarossa saw many Russians surrendering, so I imagine that it wasn't that bad. The Panzer 1 still protected from bullets and artillery shell fragments, as well.

:)
DR

Return to “Heer, Waffen-SS & Fallschirmjäger”