OT: German vs Allied Tech in WW2

[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?"

[pmulcahy11b]

Let me reiterate the experience of the late Michael March, my next-door neighbor and former Sherman crewman (started as a driver, and eventually worked his way into the TC's hatch). He got to Europe about two weeks after D-Day, and his crew was given a "reissue;" the Sherman had been hit a short time before and the entire crew was killed or wounded. The repair troops patched the Sherman up, but weren't very effective at cleaning up the mess inside. Mike told me that every time they started up the vehicle and the engine started getting warm, you could smell the previous crew.

He (and other Sherman crewman) were told straight out that in fight with a Tiger or Panther, they would lose four Shermans in the process of knocking out that German tank. The Shermans were inferior technology, but the Germans couldn't match our production rate. Given a hypothetical WW3, NATO would find themselves on the opposite side of equation -- The Warsaw Pact would mob us with tons of inferior tanks and vehicles, inferior tech aircraft, and troops that have been taught to rock and roll instead of using aimed semiautomatic fire.

The only thing that might save us is superior technology that is so superior that it equalizes the fight. And, in another parallel to the Nazis, we had a lot of wunderwaffen, but not enough to be an equalizing force. Another thing that achieve a partial equalization might be the large amounts of B-52s and B-1s that we still had in the 90s.

Unfortunately, I fear that what would happen is that a lot of Pershings would unwrap...

[Webstral]

The 98k is an interesting case of a superb system that is not well adapted for the circumstances of its use. I probably don’t need to elaborate with this crowd regarding the excellence of design of the 98k or of its lasting impact on the design of bolt action rifles. As Panther Al points out, the legacy of the 98k endures. However, the legacy is as a sniper rifle, not a battle rifle. The Germans had a superb weapon that was not optimized for infantry combat the way it actually occurs—especially in restricted terrain. The 98k was very poorly suited for the fighting in Stalingrad, where numbers of Sturmgewehr would have been warmly welcomed.

One of the important aspects of technology is knowing how to use it. As has been pointed out, the Me-262 could have had a very significant impact on the air war over Europe if Hitler hadn’t been so fixated on turning it into a bomber. The Battle of the Atlantic could have been turned around much sooner if the US has put more B-24s in at the beginning. The Germans realized early on just how flexible and powerful the 88mm was. The US developed the remarkable Norden bomb sight but tested it in the American Southwest, where sunny skies predominate. The whole concept of daylight bombing was predicated on good visibility from high altitude—conditions that don’t reliably occur over Germany. The Germans realized early on that the turret needs to include most of the tank crew and a radio; thus, with fewer and less combat-worthy tanks than the British and French, they won the Battle of France. I could go on and on, but most of us here know everything I’ve written so far. The inherent qualities of the machine are but a modest slice of the pie that is their success on the battlefield.

[Panther Al]

RN7 is right that I missed the Firefly (A Tank my grandfather finished the war in) and, as well, the Easy 8 - which is probably the best Sherman ever built. Both of these, and even the 76mm armed M4, was a much better Sherman. But they was still a small fraction of the total number of Shermans in the field before the last few months.


I would rate either the Firefly or the E8 as better than any IV, and almost equal to the Panther (Armour still sucks in comparison).


Now, as to why the M26 didn't see combat till March....



Blame the Pentagon. The M26 should have been fielded in time for the push up the Italian boot, not to mention D-Day. It was, for all intents, capable of being ready in time. However, the staffers in the puzzle palace believed that the Heavy Tank was an evil that needed to be purged from the US Army, the main argument was that resources devoted to building, and transporting, the M26 could easily be used to send 3 Sherman's to the front. Considering how good the stock Sherman was compared to the IV, it don't think it passes the smell test. The Pershing was *not* the equal to the Tiger 2. It was however the Equal to the Panther, and the Tiger 1. Its armour protection (depending on where exactly you point too - in spots it was less) was the same as both tanks, and the 90mm gun wasn't as hot as you'd might think - it was based on the 90mm AA gun yes, and the stock 90mm AA gun was the equal to the 88L71, but the gun mounted in the Pershing was basically a sawed off version, not allowing the ammo to get to full velocity before leaving the barrel and hindering its terminal performance. However, that performance was equal to the 88L56 and the 75L70, and its mobility was the equal as well.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Webstral

The 98k is an interesting case of a superb system that is not well adapted for the circumstances of its use. I probably don’t need to elaborate with this crowd regarding the excellence of design of the 98k or of its lasting impact on the design of bolt action rifles. As Panther Al points out, the legacy of the 98k endures. However, the legacy is as a sniper rifle, not a battle rifle. The Germans had a superb weapon that was not optimized for infantry combat the way it actually occurs—especially in restricted terrain. The 98k was very poorly suited for the fighting in Stalingrad, where numbers of Sturmgewehr would have been warmly welcomed.

One of the important aspects of technology is knowing how to use it. As has been pointed out, the Me-262 could have had a very significant impact on the air war over Europe if Hitler hadn’t been so fixated on turning it into a bomber. The Battle of the Atlantic could have been turned around much sooner if the US has put more B-24s in at the beginning. The Germans realized early on just how flexible and powerful the 88mm was. The US developed the remarkable Norden bomb sight but tested it in the American Southwest, where sunny skies predominate. The whole concept of daylight bombing was predicated on good visibility from high altitude—conditions that don’t reliably occur over Germany. The Germans realized early on that the turret needs to include most of the tank crew and a radio; thus, with fewer and less combat-worthy tanks than the British and French, they won the Battle of France. I could go on and on, but most of us here know everything I’ve written so far. The inherent qualities of the machine are but a modest slice of the pie that is their success on the battlefield.

I'm not saying the 98K was a great battle rifle: note I mentioned the M1 was better in that regard. But it was a rifle they had a great deal off from the first world war, they didn't have to do anything but dust off the machinery to get production going again. In this case, this was a rare example of the German military taking the sensible road when it came to procurement. It was designed for open field battle: where its range could come into play. Deserts of Afrika? Yeah... it was a dominating rifle there. Once you got into the cities, the tighter woods, yeah... Thats why I believe there was such an emphasis on the Machine Pistol post 43. They saw the problems, and unlike anyone else, actually took steps to find the right answer: the StG44 (MP44).