OT: German vs Allied Tech in WW2

[Sanjuro]

This thread was inspired by a post in the thread "In defence of the Red Army" by 95th Rifleman, which I partly disagree with:

WW2 is a good point.

Every allied nation was behind Germany in terms of tech and yet Germany still lost.

Compare the M4 Sherman to the later model Panzer IV's let alone the Panther and Tiger. The German Panzerfaust and Panzerschrek were superior to both the Bazooka and the joke (sorry, by joke I mean the british PIAT). The Germans had the jet aircraft which were superior in every way to the allied fighters.

The problem Germany had was numbers and fuel. In a WW3 scenario the Russians have a massive numerical advantage and this could prove as telling as it was in WW2.

If it takes ten T72's to kill an Abrams and the Russians have those tanks to spare, the Abrams will die. It's how the American shermans killed Tigers.

Germany's tech lead was nothing like as clear cut as that; in a few sectors they had a clear lead, but failed to exploit it. In other areas they were completely left behind.
In the example of aircraft: Germany began WW2 with what appeared to be an unbeatable air force, yet within a year was beaten comprehensively by a smaller opponent. On paper Germany had superior aircraft, yet a combination of rapid technical innovation (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Shilling's_orifice ) and greatly superior command and control completely negated their advantages.
Later in the war, both Germany and Britain built jet fighters. The ME262 suffered from 2 problems- the first was Hitler's asinine idea that it should be a bomber. The second, lesser known, was that the engines kept failing- for many months in service over 50% of missions had to be aborted because of (non-combat) engine failures. The British jet engine, on the other hand, was a lower-tech device with a centrifugal compressor- which at the time was a much more practical engine because there was one large casting, instead of dozens of fragile compressor blades.
The Panzerfaust and Panzerschrek were based (with improvements) on Bazookas captured from the Soviets [source: Modern Small Arms, by Frederick Myatt MC]: fair point about the joke though!

[raketenjagdpanzer]

The "German technical superiority" claim is one that always sticks in my bearings. Yes, there is some truth to it. However, the Germans weren't all equipped with wunderwaffen that only true grit, saving private ryan and Band of Brothers was able to overcome.

The German infantry rifle, the Kar98k, was a WWI-era bolt action rifle. As early as the Civil War, the US Army proved that volume of fire from smaller numbers of rifles is vastly more important than sheer numbers of rifles. I'll take a squad of men with Garands against a platoon with Kar98ks all experience being equal.

The "tech" behind the German heavy tanks was often very poorly thought out - aircraft engines and transmissions (I'm looking at you, Maybach) too lightweight to do the job. Pie-in-the-sky ideas like having a full diesel engine...that runs an electrical generator which actually powers the roadwheels...terrible. (Admittedly the Sherman's gas powered engine was pretty terrible, too).

Also, on the Armor front? Yeah the Sherman was massive overkill versus the PzKpfw I-III, about an even match for the IV. It wasn't much of a match for the Tiger but that's not doctrinally what it was for, either.

The Germans never gave serious consideration to nuclear weapons. Yes, they had Heavy Water experiments in Norway, but even if the Allies had left them untouched and the war had dragged on (which the Soviets weren't going to do - they were after blood, the Western Front be damned), there's no way they'd have had a tested and working bomb before the Reds got to them.

As pointed out, German jet engines were crap. Also, regarding jets? The British flew the Gloster prototype in '41 - about the same time the Germans were taking their first steps with jet engine combat a/c. Wasn't built because - surprise! - the Germans were still using prop a/c. The US' entry into the field was '43 with the Shooting Star and even before then with the P59 Airacomet which, while not much faster than piston a/c, carried a very hefty bomb-load and cannon (37mm main gun supported by dual .50s, and a 2500lb bomb-load - half what a B-17 could carry in a short-duration mission).

The Allies overcoming the Germans wasn't just because we kept pouring tons of crap weapons on top of their technically superior weapons. The T-34 in spite of its almost laughable human engineering faults was generally technically superior to most German designs prior to the PzKpfw Tiger Ausf.-b. And even then the Nazis steered clear of the '34 when it could be helped. Moreover, the Germans captured and used the T34 frequently on their retreat from the Russian Front.

The reality is more than "we had bad weapons but had more than they had, so we won". Likewise I feel like I should point out the same regarding NATO v. Soviet weapons. Where the Soviets would have hurt us wouldn't have come primarily from "Well we can swamp one division with ten of inferior men and armaments" - it would've come in the opening hours of the war with their massive intelligence coups, special operations groups, and the like. Remember, the Walkers (may all of them rot forever) essentially gave the Soviets every piece of operational information about the US Navy they could. Everything from classified stats on Fleet deployments down to F-14 fuel consumption and turning ratios. The consequence of not living in a nightmare police state which is what everyone east of the Berlin Wall lived under until 1990, but rather a free and open society was that the Soviets were able to pre-position Spetsnaz groups and equipment throughout western europe.

But this idea that NATO somehow put on blinders and decided to exactly imitate the Nazi military mindset of producing super-tanks and I don't know what is just ridiculously fallacious, and I wish we could drop it.

Our fucking Abrams Tank was designed to survive a fight with a dozen slave labor produced T72s because we as a society decided not to let ourselves live like slaves, throwing huge portions of our GDP into a war machine poised to invade the East (in spite of what the authors of T2k seem to think).

I recommend those of you not acquainted with it read Air-Land Battle and see what it set out to accomplish. Also, for extra homework, look up what the Soviet tactics designed to counter it were. They were so confident in the ability of their divisions full of illiterate conscripts and disposable tanks that from D+1 they were planning on using thousands of tons of biological and chemical agents on concentrations of NATO troops that their own glorious People's Army was unable to overcome, as well as tac-nukes in the rear areas.

I'm sorry if that's ranty and I know people are going to jump on this post but this notion that the Nazis had unbeatable wonder weapons and could've won the war given a few extra months is a lie, and likewise the BMPs on the Seine by D+10 is an equally monstrous lie.

[B.T.]

I normally do not qoute myself, but this is the exception from the rule. I posted this on the "In defence of the Red Army":
"One should not forget, that the German society was in a constant state of paranoia. Even in the developement of weapons, several agencies tried, to convince all others, that their approach would be the best. And that led to a situaton, where different groups worked on the development of certain items, but a central "power" was lacking. Look at the development of a modern infantry rifle, as an example: Fallschirmjägergewehr and Sturmgewehr both were interesting designs, both were really influential. But in the end, a lot of labour and intellectual manpower were wasted. Because everyone tried his thing, ignoring the work of others. (As an aside: This seems to be repeated in the current US: SOCOM, Marines and Army all search for a specific new rifle. But every force uses a different approach. Or look at the developement of helmets: Marines and Army both replaced the PASGT helmet, but both forces developed their own design!)
The majority of the German units in WWII were still equipped with an old rifle (Kar 98), even in the end of the war. And most soldiers did not ride in fancy halftracks, they moved on foot."

There are some more facts, that have to be kept in mind:
The war economy of Germany was concentrated on building the more expensive and important planes, tanks, etc.
But Germany does not have that many natural resources, as several other countries have. The quality of very basic items got worse, during the war. Everything had to be spared. Germany had not enough leather or textiles. The late war uniforms were made of recycled materials, that were of inferior quality. The boots (and later on shoes) got worse. And production of a lot of other things could not catch up with the losses.
And: When the war began, the German forces had been trained for the war. Although the Reichswehr of the Weimar Republic should have been a small force, Germany violated the Versailles treaty on numerous occasions. Compared to the allies, the Germans were ready for that war.
Take a look at several other states: The U.S. had been in their "Isolationism"-period with a very small Army. The Soviets had just slaughtered the bulk of their professional officers in the 30ies. I'm not sure about the situation in the UK, but IIRC, the British forces had to be build up from scratch, after the Dunkirk desaster.
Yes, in several aspects or trades, the Germans were "superior", but the best airplane, rifle or tank, does not work, if you do not have the resources, to produce fuel or ammunitions for the technically advanced items. All in all, the German military lost some kind of advantage, the longer the war lasted. And those few fancy "Wunderwaffen" or high-tech gimmicks were just that: gimmicks, that could not change the course of the war.

[RN7]

Briefly: Germany had very few technological clear cut leads over the Allies in WW2, and in industrial efficiency and the development of nuclear weapon they were well behind.

In ballistic and radio controlled missiles they where well ahead of the field, in fact the post-war US and Soviet missile and space programmes were largely based on German developments. In jet engines only Britain was even near them, but in other areas of aviation British and American aircraft technology matched or even surpassed them throughout the war, and in electronics and radars the British were probably ahead of everyone.

On land the larger German tanks were better armed and protected than anyone's expect for the Russians, but German tanks also had reliability issues. The allies also deliberately mass produced the Sherman and others because they were available and they could build them in huge numbers. If the M26 Pershing and Centurion had been available at D-Day in 1944 instead of 1945, they could have handled anything the Germans had thrown at them with ease.

At sea the Germans were probably behind Britain and America outside of submarine technology, and the only lead that Germany had was with certain submarine engine types and torpedoes and the technology was far from the finished article and British ASW countermeasures largely kept pace anything Germany developed.

[Raellus]

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to go with Max Hastings on this one. In WWII, the Allies had some superior weaponry- the P-51 Mustang, M-1 Garand, and the T-34/85 are all examples. Overall, they also had superior artillery. Allied naval superiority isn't really a matter of debate (aside from the Japanese Yamato class super-battleships which were impressive but anachronistic by 1941 and a couple of advanced German U-boat classes).

On the other hand, the Germans fielded a clearly superior GPMG in the MG-42, the word's first assault rifle, the STG-43/44, and the deadly 88mm DP gun. Most WA tanks crews would have gladly traded in their Sherman or Churchill for a Panther or Tiger, depite their often finicky engines. The ME-262 had is problems and vulnerabilities, but it still gave the allies fits in the air. Most ME-262s that were shot down were done so when they were landing. The Brits might have had jet aircraft first, but they didn't field them in any significant numbers until the war was nearly over. ASFAIK, there weren't any Meteor aces. The Germans also developed the world's first ballistic missile and the first radio-controlled ASMs.

The German's biggest mistake was devoting so much of their war industry on small production runs of extremely complex and complicated wonder-weapons. That, coupled with a delay in converting to a war economy and late-war shortages of fuel and raw materials due to strategic bombing and sabotage meant that the Germans would never be able to translate any technological edge into a decisive strategic advantage.

No one can argue that the correlation of forces was not the decisive factor in the Allies' victory. We had numerical advantages of at least 3-to-1, and in some cases 5-to-1 or more, in every major category of weaponry, from tanks to fighters to warships to men in uniform.

Now back to the Red Army. In WWII, the Soviet Union lost more citizens and soldiers than any other nation on earth. The U.S. had the lowest casualties of any major combatant. With all of their technology, the U.S. and UK combined to kill approximately 500,000 German men at arms during the entire war. The Soviets killed about 4.5m. The Red Army began the war with a decimated officer corps, outdated infantry weapons, and generally very poorly equipped troops. Four years later, they were a juggernaut.

As for arguments about doctrine- no plan survives first contact with the enemy. The idea that superior doctrine would have won the war assumes a short war with flawless execution, no surprises, and a fairly predictable, cooperative enemy. In a longer war, both sides learn to make adjustments.

Hitler expected the U.S.S.R. to collapse in a matter of weeks. "Kick in the door and the whole rotten building will collapse" he said. For a few weeks, it looked like he might be right. Four years later, the Red Army was at the gates of Berlin.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Raellus

The German's biggest mistake was devoting so much of their war industry on small production runs of extremely complex and complicated wonder-weapons. That, coupled with a delay in converting to a war economy and late-war shortages of fuel and raw materials due to strategic bombing and sabotage meant that the Germans would never be able to translate any technological edge into a decisive strategic advantage.

Here you hit the nail on the head:

Germany was running on the equivalent of peace time production well into 43: It took Speer a lot of work to convince Hitler to allow German industry to work overtime hours, and more than one shift!

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to go with Max Hastings on this one. In WWII, the Allies had some superior weaponry- the P-51 Mustang, M-1 Garand, and the T-34/85 are all examples. Overall, they also had superior artillery. Allied naval superiority isn't really a matter of debate (aside from the Japanese Yamato class super-battleships which were impressive but anachronistic by 1941 and a couple of advanced German U-boat classes).

On the other hand, the Germans fielded a clearly superior GPMG in the MG-42, the word's first assault rifle, the STG-43/44, and the deadly 88mm DP gun. Most WA tanks crews would have gladly traded in their Sherman or Churchill for a Panther or Tiger, depite their often finicky engines.

And the Allies fielded a superior light machine gun; The Bren Gun, the world's first real infantry support weapon, still used by the British Army until the 1980's and still built in India. The Allies also fielded the M2 Browning, the best heavy machine gun ever made and still the standard heavy machine gun of every NATO and western country and many more besides. Despite its limitations the Germans also had a very healthy respect for the Sherman Firefly, who's 17 pounder chewed up some Panthers and Tigers in Normandy after D-Day, and are credit with killing the Tiger tank commanded by Michael Wittmann who was Germany's top scoring tank ace of WW2. The Allied tank commanders would no dount have prefered to have gone into battle against the Germans with the M26 Pershings and Centurion but the Sherman weighed 33 tonnes as opposed to 46 tons for the Pershing and I think the Centurion was even heavier. I think the logistical problems of transporting them across the sea in landing craft and then putting them on the beaches may have played a part in prolonging their introduction as the smaller Shermans were doing a good enough job and their were thousands available.

Originally Posted by Raellus

The ME-262 had is problems and vulnerabilities, but it still gave the allies fits in the air. Most ME-262s that were shot down were done so when they were landing. The Brits might have had jet aircraft first, but they didn't field them in any significant numbers until the war was nearly over. ASFAIK, there weren't any Meteor aces. The Germans also developed the world's first ballistic missile and the first radio-controlled ASMs.

The Germans were well ahead of the rest of the world in ballistic and radio controlled missiles. The Brits didn't have any need to field the Meteor in any significant numbers until the war was nearly over as the Allied air superiority over Western Europe and Germany was so great they werent needed. Also the RAF forbid Meteor pilots to fly over German occupied territory or to go east of Eindhoven in Holland until January 1945, to prevent downed aircraft being captured by the Germans or the Soviets. There werent any Meteor aces because there were relatively few German fighters flying in 1945 and the Meteor never actually encountered any German fighters.

Originally Posted by Raellus

The German's biggest mistake was devoting so much of their war industry on small production runs of extremely complex and complicated wonder-weapons. That, coupled with a delay in converting to a war economy and late-war shortages of fuel and raw materials due to strategic bombing and sabotage meant that the Germans would never be able to translate any technological edge into a decisive strategic advantage.

No one can argue that the correlation of forces was not the decisive factor in the Allies' victory. We had numerical advantages of at least 3-to-1, and in some cases 5-to-1 or more, in every major category of weaponry, from tanks to fighters to warships to men in uniform.

True

Originally Posted by Raellus

Now back to the Red Army. In WWII, the Soviet Union lost more citizens and soldiers than any other nation on earth. The U.S. had the lowest casualties of any major combatant. With all of their technology, the U.S. and UK combined to kill approximately 500,000 German men at arms during the entire war. The Soviets killed about 4.5m. The Red Army began the war with a decimated officer corps, outdated infantry weapons, and generally very poorly equipped troops. Four years later, they were a juggernaut.

The Germans also killed three times as many Soviets as the Soviets killed Germans. Outside of air and naval operations the only major land battlefield between the UK/USA and Germany from 1940 until the invasion of Sicily in 1943 was North Africa, a small side show compared to the Eastern Front. The UK/USA armies were only realy able to get to grips with the Germans with their full military forces in a geographicaly open battleground after D-Day. The German army casualty rates in the west after D-Day were every bit as severe as they were in the east, and Western air power was superior in technology and also in numbers to even the Soviets.

Originally Posted by Raellus

As for arguments about doctrine- no plan survives first contact with the enemy. The idea that superior doctrine would have won the war assumes a short war with flawless execution, no surprises, and a fairly predictable, cooperative enemy. In a longer war, both sides learn to make adjustments.

Hitler expected the U.S.S.R. to collapse in a matter of weeks. "Kick in the door and the whole rotten building will collapse" he said. For a few weeks, it looked like he might be right. Four years later, the Red Army was at the gates of Berlin.

The Allies could have taken Berlin before the Soviets, in fact the Germans probably wanted them to take Berlin before the Soviets. But the decision who was to take Berlin was decided at the Yalta Conference in February 1945. Eisenhower’s halted the Western Allied advance at the Elbe River.

[Panther Al]

Let me hit some high points that was brought up by Raketenjagdpanzer.


For starters, yes, it was a rant, and no need for cursing... but I get where you are coming from so no worries.

I've never bought into the whole, "Another 6 months (Or Year, or whatever) they would have pulled it off" mentality. There was far too many reasons why that was a pipe dream.

But there is a few errors there.

Lets start with the Mauser 98. For starters, its not a WW1 era rifle. Its actually older than that. But thats minor - the point here is that even though its a old design, being old isn't something that makes it obsolete or useless: In fact, the Mauser 98K is still on active service as a top notch sniper rifle by various countries in its original form - and its action has been copied by about 75% of every other high end sniper system on the planet. Not exactly garbage that. Yes, I would agree the M1 was a better battle rifle - being a semiauto is a huge advantage over bolt action designs. But the M1 isn't used anymore - even for sniping unlike the 98k. And lets not forget the MG42 - still in frontline use today, and still the better of anything anyone else uses - and I've used the MG3 and the M240 in combat, and I'll take a 3 any day of the week.

Secondly, you are spot on for the Heavy tanks. By and large - and I will except the original Tiger I from this - heavy tank designs such as the Tiger 2, Jagdtiger, and the Ferdinand/Elefant was a colossal waste of time and resources that had no business being pushed beyond proof of concept stage. It was a waste of effort, manpower, and resources that has no excuse. However, Maybach doesn't make trannies: just the engines. Transmissions was made by ZF. Who, by the by, is the go to source in europe to this day for transmissions. In fact, those of us that have a BMW for example, have a ZF transmission. Now, the problem that German tanks had isn't because of one thing or another: the root of it is that no Panzer ever was actually built at its designed weight. Take the Pz4. It was designed to be a 22 ton tank. Its transmission, engine, and final drives (And it was the Final Drives that was the killer of german tanks) was geared for a 22 ton tank. Not the 30+ ton tank it wound up being. Same goes for the Tiger, it was designed to be a 45 ton tank, and was a good bit more than that. The Panther, for all its bashers, was almost an exception to the rule. It was meant to be a 40 ton tank, and unlike every other tank they built, they kept it from creeping up to much - it pegged out at 45 tons. Still enough that you had to keep an eye on the final drives, but much better. Also, as far as german tanks go, it was actually the only on that was overpowered. Yes. Overpowered. In order to cut costs, instead of going with a modified engine that was used on the IV, they decided to take the one out of the Tiger. This gave the panther a power to weight ratio that is the equal of the Challenger 1. War time production constraints did cause issues in the reliability of the engines, but thats no fault of the design.

And the Sherman - while a great tank from a reliability and production standpoint - wasn't the equal of a later model IV (G and onwards). More like a late III (L or M). The PzIII was almost un-german in its reliability. For some weird reason, the design was just solid all around. Half the mechanical issues the IV had, could be trusted to work when needed, and had the same armour package as the IV. Its downfall was that it was too small to take larger gun than the 5cm. And don't let that 5cm fool you: it was a better AT weapon than the 75mm in the Sherman. The only advantage the Sherman had over the III was it had a better HE round. But armour was equivalent, as was reliability of the the Early Shermans that was fielded at the same time as the III was. The IV's long 75 was *much* better than the 75 used on the Sherman. All comes down to barrel length and the velocity it allows. The German 75 was a long barrelled, high velocity gun, while the Sherman was a low velocity stubby gun designed to deliver HE rounds to take out MG nests: it was not meant to engage tanks except in an emergency.

You are right about the nuke program, and on the Jet front: the key difference is that the Germans actually tried to field large numbers of Jets where the US still thought it was a dumb idea.

The T34 was the great tank of the war. It was so good, the US actually imported a few in 41 and gave serious though to using it instead of the Sherman. Very Very serious thought. The transmission is what killed the deal though: the ones they sent us was the first flight T34 that made a german Tiger II look like a finely built swiss watch in the reliability department. Once they fixed those issues in 42, it was a whole new tank. And it was the T34 and not the Sherman that convinced the Germans to dump the III and go for the IV (and later the panther). The Panther was the better tank: It was actually equal in reliability to the T34 (Still those transmission issues on the case of the T34) when properly maintained, its armour was vastly better, and had a much better gun. And that includes the DT-5 85mm the later T34's had: Russians have always, to the day, had issues with propellent in large calibre guns that have forced them to built bigger to get equal performance.

Now the rest of the post, I couldn't agree more by and large: Yes, it could be said that we was doing the German thing, and look how that worked out for them, but that ignores the fact that unlike the germans the NATO armies would be properly supported to a degree that the Wehrmacht never was. And like it or not, the M1 was designed to be the ultimate tank - Creighton Abrams himself, when the program was started (Before it was known as a M1, and just after the debacle that was the MBT70) said, "I want a Tiger 2 - just one that works." And they did so: The designers spared no expense in making sure that every facet of the design was maxed out: Protection, Speed, Firepower. Usually you got to give a little in one category to get a little in the other, but they added the forth ingredient: Cash. Toss enough money at any engineering problem, you'll find a way to get around it. Pity he didn't live long enough to see it bear fruit. I could just see him taking the first one out for a spin with 'Thunderbolt 9' painted on the side.

Air-Land Battle is a good source, and like you, I recommend any who hasn't read it, to do so. Its a great way to get a feeling for how the US was planning on fighting WW3. But also, dig deeper than what is found on the internet to see what the Soviets was planning: A lot of what you see there is based on supposition and jingo-ism. The Soviets knew they was facing an uphill battle post 84 - a lot of generals said that once the Reagan build up got solidly underway (I've heard dates of 88-90), there was no longer any real hope of winning without NBC warfare - and they planned accordingly. Falling back on NBC doesn't mean they was throwing in the towel: they was just coming up with a plan that would probably work. Post GW the Soviets really knew they was done for. I think that played a huge role in the end of the Soviet menace. Pre-88, they was still confident of a win - just wouldn't be easy. And they had reason to be reasonably confident. I am nbot going to say they was right, or wrong, but they had solid plans in place to counter the effects of the AirLand Battle, and recall, there wouldn't be much Air in the FEBA - There the Soviets was justly and fairly confident that they had the upper hand thanks to the efforts put into forward air defence.


I have no idea how WW3 in the 80's would have wound up: My gut feeling is the further from 1980 and the closer to 1990 the less likely the Soviets would have pulled it off without going nuclear. Using hindsight, everyone pretty much all the professionals agree it would have been us breaking out the portable buckets of sunshine (Thats 80's air force speak for Nukes) if they kicked off between 75-83 - the western armies, especially and most importantly the US - was a hollow threat.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Let me hit some high points that was brought up by Raketenjagdpanzer.


For starters, yes, it was a rant, and no need for cursing... but I get where you are coming from so no worries.

I've never bought into the whole, "Another 6 months (Or Year, or whatever) they would have pulled it off" mentality. There was far too many reasons why that was a pipe dream.

But there is a few errors there.

Lets start with the Mauser 98. For starters, its not a WW1 era rifle. Its actually older than that. But thats minor - the point here is that even though its a old design, being old isn't something that makes it obsolete or useless: In fact, the Mauser 98K is still on active service as a top notch sniper rifle by various countries in its original form - and its action has been copied by about 75% of every other high end sniper system on the planet. Not exactly garbage that. Yes, I would agree the M1 was a better battle rifle - being a semiauto is a huge advantage over bolt action designs. But the M1 isn't used anymore - even for sniping unlike the 98k. And lets not forget the MG42 - still in frontline use today, and still the better of anything anyone else uses - and I've used the MG3 and the M240 in combat, and I'll take a 3 any day of the week.

Secondly, you are spot on for the Heavy tanks. By and large - and I will except the original Tiger I from this - heavy tank designs such as the Tiger 2, Jagdtiger, and the Ferdinand/Elefant was a colossal waste of time and resources that had no business being pushed beyond proof of concept stage. It was a waste of effort, manpower, and resources that has no excuse. However, Maybach doesn't make trannies: just the engines. Transmissions was made by ZF. Who, by the by, is the go to source in europe to this day for transmissions. In fact, those of us that have a BMW for example, have a ZF transmission. Now, the problem that German tanks had isn't because of one thing or another: the root of it is that no Panzer ever was actually built at its designed weight. Take the Pz4. It was designed to be a 22 ton tank. Its transmission, engine, and final drives (And it was the Final Drives that was the killer of german tanks) was geared for a 22 ton tank. Not the 30+ ton tank it wound up being. Same goes for the Tiger, it was designed to be a 45 ton tank, and was a good bit more than that. The Panther, for all its bashers, was almost an exception to the rule. It was meant to be a 40 ton tank, and unlike every other tank they built, they kept it from creeping up to much - it pegged out at 45 tons. Still enough that you had to keep an eye on the final drives, but much better. Also, as far as german tanks go, it was actually the only on that was overpowered. Yes. Overpowered. In order to cut costs, instead of going with a modified engine that was used on the IV, they decided to take the one out of the Tiger. This gave the panther a power to weight ratio that is the equal of the Challenger 1. War time production constraints did cause issues in the reliability of the engines, but thats no fault of the design.

And the Sherman - while a great tank from a reliability and production standpoint - wasn't the equal of a later model IV (G and onwards). More like a late III (L or M). The PzIII was almost un-german in its reliability. For some weird reason, the design was just solid all around. Half the mechanical issues the IV had, could be trusted to work when needed, and had the same armour package as the IV. Its downfall was that it was too small to take larger gun than the 5cm. And don't let that 5cm fool you: it was a better AT weapon than the 75mm in the Sherman. The only advantage the Sherman had over the III was it had a better HE round. But armour was equivalent, as was reliability of the the Early Shermans that was fielded at the same time as the III was. The IV's long 75 was *much* better than the 75 used on the Sherman. All comes down to barrel length and the velocity it allows. The German 75 was a long barrelled, high velocity gun, while the Sherman was a low velocity stubby gun designed to deliver HE rounds to take out MG nests: it was not meant to engage tanks except in an emergency.

You are right about the nuke program, and on the Jet front: the key difference is that the Germans actually tried to field large numbers of Jets where the US still thought it was a dumb idea.

The T34 was the great tank of the war. It was so good, the US actually imported a few in 41 and gave serious though to using it instead of the Sherman. Very Very serious thought. The transmission is what killed the deal though: the ones they sent us was the first flight T34 that made a german Tiger II look like a finely built swiss watch in the reliability department. Once they fixed those issues in 42, it was a whole new tank. And it was the T34 and not the Sherman that convinced the Germans to dump the III and go for the IV (and later the panther). The Panther was the better tank: It was actually equal in reliability to the T34 (Still those transmission issues on the case of the T34) when properly maintained, its armour was vastly better, and had a much better gun. And that includes the DT-5 85mm the later T34's had: Russians have always, to the day, had issues with propellent in large calibre guns that have forced them to built bigger to get equal performance.

Now the rest of the post, I couldn't agree more by and large: Yes, it could be said that we was doing the German thing, and look how that worked out for them, but that ignores the fact that unlike the germans the NATO armies would be properly supported to a degree that the Wehrmacht never was. And like it or not, the M1 was designed to be the ultimate tank - Creighton Abrams himself, when the program was started (Before it was known as a M1, and just after the debacle that was the MBT70) said, "I want a Tiger 2 - just one that works." And they did so: The designers spared no expense in making sure that every facet of the design was maxed out: Protection, Speed, Firepower. Usually you got to give a little in one category to get a little in the other, but they added the forth ingredient: Cash. Toss enough money at any engineering problem, you'll find a way to get around it. Pity he didn't live long enough to see it bear fruit. I could just see him taking the first one out for a spin with 'Thunderbolt 9' painted on the side.

Air-Land Battle is a good source, and like you, I recommend any who hasn't read it, to do so. Its a great way to get a feeling for how the US was planning on fighting WW3. But also, dig deeper than what is found on the internet to see what the Soviets was planning: A lot of what you see there is based on supposition and jingo-ism. The Soviets knew they was facing an uphill battle post 84 - a lot of generals said that once the Reagan build up got solidly underway (I've heard dates of 88-90), there was no longer any real hope of winning without NBC warfare - and they planned accordingly. Falling back on NBC doesn't mean they was throwing in the towel: they was just coming up with a plan that would probably work. Post GW the Soviets really knew they was done for. I think that played a huge role in the end of the Soviet menace. Pre-88, they was still confident of a win - just wouldn't be easy. And they had reason to be reasonably confident. I am nbot going to say they was right, or wrong, but they had solid plans in place to counter the effects of the AirLand Battle, and recall, there wouldn't be much Air in the FEBA - There the Soviets was justly and fairly confident that they had the upper hand thanks to the efforts put into forward air defence.


I have no idea how WW3 in the 80's would have wound up: My gut feeling is the further from 1980 and the closer to 1990 the less likely the Soviets would have pulled it off without going nuclear. Using hindsight, everyone pretty much all the professionals agree it would have been us breaking out the portable buckets of sunshine (Thats 80's air force speak for Nukes) if they kicked off between 75-83 - the western armies, especially and most importantly the US - was a hollow threat.

I think I'd agree with most of that except for the fact that you missed the Sherman Firefly, which was a very effective tank killer at standard combat ranges.

The problem with post-war American tanks was that they weren't much better than anything the Soviets had and they had fewer tanks. The M60 was basicaly a progressive development of the WW2 M26, via the M47/M48. None of these tanks were bad tanks, just they not much better if at all than the Soviet T-55/T-62/T-64 generation. US tankers in Europe from the late 60's until 1980 must have been looking at the BAOR in NORTHAG with their 60 ton Chieftain tanks with 120mm rifled guns and saying to the Generals in the Pentagon "why cant we have one of them?"

[LAW0306]

we have a differnt helmet because we do differnt things. with out getting into secrets on a forum. do your homework before you bash the best army in the world or the United States Marine Corps.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by LAW0306

we have a differnt helmet because we do differnt things. with out getting into secrets on a forum. do your homework before you bash the best army in the world or the United States Marine Corps.

Wait, I'm confused. Where's the bashing? That the USMC developed their own helmet is a statement of fact. Did I miss the post where someone disparaged the efficacy of the USMC's helmet?

[Raellus]

I've read a lot of books about the USMC in WWII (& Korea and Vietnam) over the last couple of years and, overall, I am really impressed with its performance. They fought in some of the fiercest, no-quarter combat of the war (Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Peleilu, Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, to name a few) and despite often taking heavy casualties, they almost always prevailed.

The Japanese, although tough and determined enemies, were cursed with some of the worst tech of the war. Pretty much all of their weapons systems were inferior to the Western equivalent. The Zero was king for a while, but as soon as allied pilots figured out not to get into a turning/climbing fight with it, it lost a lot of its mystique. Later Allied designs like the Hellcat and Corsair were superior. The Yamato super battleship was impressive and would have been superior in most respects in the age of the battle line, but in the era of naval air, it was a dinosaur.

Japanese infantry weapons were generally crap, across the board. The only major exception was their little "knee" mortars, which could generate impressive close-in indirect fire support. They never had enough artillery, their tanks were crap, and most Japanese infantrymen fought with long, unwieldly bolt-action rifles.

It kind of makes one wonder how the Japanese would have fared with better weapons systems and better leadership.

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by Targan

Wait, I'm confused. Where's the bashing? That the USMC developed their own helmet is a statement of fact. Did I miss the post where someone disparaged the efficacy of the USMC's helmet?

there was no bash.

The USMC is one of our times most legendary miltary formations. No one has said anything else in this thread so far.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Targan

Wait, I'm confused. Where's the bashing? That the USMC developed their own helmet is a statement of fact. Did I miss the post where someone disparaged the efficacy of the USMC's helmet?

Wait, I'm confused. When did the Marines develop a new helmet? What does it look like?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

...I'm sorry if that's ranty and I know people are going to jump on this post...

Um yeah, I am going to jump on a few things here but probably not the ones people think. In fact what I'm going to say means I am quite happy to jump to Raellus's defence for his original post in defence of the Red Army.

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

...The Germans never gave serious consideration to nuclear weapons. Yes, they had Heavy Water experiments in Norway, but even if the Allies had left them untouched and the war had dragged on (which the Soviets weren't going to do - they were after blood, the Western Front be damned), there's no way they'd have had a tested and working bomb before the Reds got to them...

Jury is still out I think on this, I've read statements from German scientists from after the war saying that they actively prevented the development of atomic weapons even though they believed that they could have achieved production. In particular, they claimed that by using technical language involving physics and higher math, they were able to confuse the issue enough that they never truly conveyed the power of atomic weapons to the Nazi regime nor the ability to produce them.

And I've also read claims that the Germans didn't have the knowledge to do so or that they didn't have the necessary uranium resources and so on, so it seems that the whole issue is never going to be particularly clear...

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

...The consequence of not living in a nightmare police state which is what everyone east of the Berlin Wall lived under until 1990, but rather a free and open society was that the Soviets were able to pre-position Spetsnaz groups and equipment throughout western europe...

I personally know Czechs, Russians and Poles who were living behind the Iron Curtain and yes indoctrination played a huge part in the development of their cultures and the secret police played a significant part in their lives (even more so with East Germany) but for the majority of people living outside the Soviet Union, life was actually pretty damned good some of the time. Free and I mean COMPLETELY free education and medical care and if you didn't have a job one would be found for you (if however, you were a lazy swine who didn't want to work, you would often be thrown in forced labour prisons or conscripted)

In Poland and Czechoslovakia for example, they had more freedoms than the Soviets and more consumer goods and generally more food, clothes and luxury items in the shops. My Czech work colleague used to be a coal miner and the liberties extended to miners would never happen in the West simply because the communist regimes relied heavily on the mines and gave the miners a lot of leeway - such as the ability to refuse conscription and the "exchange rate" was pretty good, three years in the Army or one year in the mines.

True the mines were dangerous but no more so than mines in any Western nation. My work colleague stayed as a miner for many years and was able to afford such luxuries as a brand new colour TV from West Germany - TVs that were regularly sold in Czechoslovak department stores.

Hungarians had a rather "too easy" time crossing the border into Austria during certain years of the Cold War because memories of the Austro-Hungarian Empire were still very strong and the border guards of both nations might sometimes be related by old family ties. Hungarians often went into Austria to shop for items that they then sold on to the Soviets!

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

... a dozen slave labor produced T72s...

Many Soviet workers actually took pride in their work and firmly believing the crap that the Soviet State indoctrinated them with, many of them felt that they were contributing to the security of the Motherland and helping to keep the world free. That plus the Soviets massive expenditure on Civil Defence shelters and training compared to the West convinced many Soviet citizens that the State did care about their ability to survive any aggression from the West.

You have to consider that despite the harshness of the State, the Russians in particular lived in a harsh land and were used to making sacrifices for Rodina (that plus the fact that they have been invaded by significant military forces nearly every two hundred years tends you make you more accepting of the need for sacrifice).

The Soviet Union did have significant problems, food & clothing shortages particularly, but the idea that everyone east of the Berlin Wall lived under a nightmare police state is hyperbole and propaganda and dare I say, indoctrination, from the West.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

The Soviet Union did have significant problems, food & clothing shortages particularly, but the idea that everyone east of the Berlin Wall lived under a nightmare police state is hyperbole and propaganda and dare I say, indoctrination, from the West.

Regarding economic conditions inside the Soviet Union, I suggest a read from the late 1960’s: Workers’ Paradise Lost by Eugene Lyons. Remarkably prescient. This work has figured strongly into my efforts to build a v1 chronology that connects 1989 with the outbreak of the Sino-Soviet War in 1995.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

And I've also read claims that the Germans didn't have the knowledge to do so or that they didn't have the necessary uranium resources and so on, so it seems that the whole issue is never going to be particularly clear...

The Germans' lack of uranium was one of the reasons they invaded the USSR. The bigwigs were actually hoping to get to the Urals, parts of which had large amounts of uranium ore.