Technology...Some Thoughts

[piratefish]

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that that German armour was not better because it was German. I'm saying that it was doctrine and training that delivered their successes. And I'm saying that the tanks that were designed after the Germans started facing the Russians adopted aspects of Russian design because they were recognisably superior.

And I apologize to you it seems as though I am suggesting that German armor is better simply because it is German. That would be utter nonsense. There is no doubt that the Panther was a direct response to meeting the T-34 and KV-1. The Germans would have been foolish to persist in the war with only the Panzer III and Panzer IV. But the aspects that the Germans "copied" from the Soviets were the characteristics that made a tank better. There has to be some actual benefit gained by modifying a tank design to better adapt to the battlefield than just simple aesthetics. In other words, designing a take to simply look like a T-34 would do nothing for improving the success of a tank - that's why any similarities in profile alone are meaningless. I mean, so what if it just "looks" similar to a T-34? Again, this suggests copying a better technology in general - not a Soviet design (because the T-34 was itself also a series of adaptations on the work and advancements of other nations - mostly Great Brittain and Japan, and to a much lesser extent the USA's Christie).

Again, I would like to point out that if I found myself in a war where my technology was a couple of decades behind my enemy's, I wouldn't screw around reinventing the wheel first. I would study my enemy, design something that would incorporate all of the technology and attributes that made him successful (which I don't think anyone would argue that the Germans clearly did), and get a design of my own incorporating these elements as quickly as possible. But I am saying, though, that over the course of the War (a relatively short period of time compared to the timeframe other nations had to develope their armor design), the Germans ended up producing arguably the best tank of the war. Counter the T-34 they did, indeed. (Which is why the Soviets ended up developing the IS-2).

Yes, you keep writing that. It's irrelevant because on this occasion there is clearly causality. You can see it in the Daimler-Benz prototype which looks identical to the T-34. You can see it in the profile of the Panther. You can read about what the man who was on the front line facing the T-34s said.

Again, if I am going to design a tank, I am going to take a real close look at my most immediate enemy as the starting point. I would not waste time trying to invent some new, fantastic feature or technology. I would focus on what works and get it into a production design of my own post haste. The Soviets took a lot from the Brittish, some from the Japanese, and a little bit from the Americans to come up with the T-34; because they had the luxury of time with no enemy in their face. It was borrowed technology packaged in a Soviet configuration. The Germans took the same technology and advancements (along with some of the Soviet tweaks) and packaged it into the Panther. It would be a lot like copying off of someone who copied off of several other people to come up with his thesis. Are you really copying his thesis? Where does the causality begin? I say the Germans used the most expedient approach to counter their enemy out of sheer necessity.

Then could you show me which tank the Soviets copied for their T-34 design?

The T-26, the immediate forerunner to the T-34, was based on the Brittish Vickers. It was tweaked out in 1939 by Koshkin with a diesel engine (borrowed idea from the Japanese), thicker armor, and bigger guns. So essentially, one could call it a third generation Vickers with a few Soviet modifications.

There's nothing wrong with 'simply copycatting' the enemy. You seem to be working overtime in order to avoid crediting the Soviets with any advances at all and I have to wonder why that would be.

Nope. I'm simply saying that they are no different than the Germans, except that they had a lot more time to work with and borrowed from more designs. The Germans simply took the baton and ran with it. The T-34 was one of the best tanks from 1939 until about mid 1943. From then on, it was the Panther. Only lack of resources, the loss of air superiority, fighting on two fronts, and the lack of production capacity kept the Panther from realizing its full potential (not to mention it almost always had to fight outnumbered). Indeed, the allies all had to come up with new tanks to answer the Panther - it was very well respected on the battlefield and much feared (and the last thing a Soviet T-34 tank crew wanted to see on the horizon).

And I think that while some of their tanks were good (such as the Panther) others were technological dead-ends (the Tiger) and that there's a mythology around German equipment that makes it extremely hard to do any critical analysis because it always runs in to the 'German tanks were the best, because they were' line of thinking which we have here.

The tiger wasn't so much a technological dead end as it was impractical; financially (it was much more expensive than producing a Panther) and due to lead time, lack of resources and diminishing production capability.

You were quite specific when you said that German tanks were recognised for their 'thick armour'. I've pointed out that this isn't the case. Early-war, Matildas and Somuas and KVs are better armoured. Late-war, JS2s are better armoured.

Yep, I was. And I stand by it.

The Panther had 80 to 100 mm armor on it's glacis and turret, respectively. The T-34 had only 70 mm by it's third iteration. Since the T-34 and the Panther are considered to be some of the best tanks of the war, those are my basis of comparison. (The Tiger I was even thicker at 100 and 120 mm).

In my book (and the books of a lot of others I have spoken with and read), that makes them known for their thick armor - among the thickest of the war. The British Matilda only had 75 mm armor, the French Somua only 47 mm, and the Soviet KV85 had 120mm - introduced shortly after the appearance of the Panther. The IS series (a direct response to German Pathers and Tigers) had up to 220mm but were highly impractical as a "pure" tank and was used more to assult fortifications than to fight other tanks.

 

[piratefish]

German equipment was designed for manouever warfare, whereas most Western countries at the time were designing tanks for the Infantry support role.

Which is why they had to rethink things after running into so many Soviet tanks. The sheer numbers and area involved practically nullified the manouver approach to warfare (or at least greatly diminished its efficacy).

I don't think the Germans, however, were as concerned with changing tank design as some seem to think until Kursk. For the approach (which worked extremely well in the first year of Barbarossa) the Germans were taking, Panzer IIIs and IVs worked very well. You encircle the poorly positioned and prepared, unmotivated, disorganized enemy and cut off his supply and communications, it won't really matter how good his armor is.

Though German equipment generally improved during the war, it started to become less and less effective as the war went along and the Allies started to adapt thier doctrinal approach to counteract German tactics. War is Darwinian. Adapt and overcome or die. Beat someones head against a brickwall long enough they get the point.

I wouldn't say it became less effective so much as the Germans were simply overpowered by the Allies and the Commintern. Talk about biting off more than one can chew. Afterall, Panthers and Tigers made the Allies and the Soviets seriously look at their tanks and scramble to come up with responses.

I think what really broke the Germans (aside from a micromanaging, deluded nutjob at the helm) was grossly undermatched production capability, comparative lack of resources (including manpower), the loss of air superiority over the battlefields and over Europe (a key foundation of Blitzkrieg), and fighting on two fronts. Not to mention the audacity to engage in a land war in Asia.

Oh and lets be clear about this, Britain invented the tank, we even coined the name tank. (Australian Lancelot Eldin De Mole tried to claim responsibility but the case was dismissed) We were a bit lax during the period between the wars about developing said tank, but yes sirree tank? yup British.

Yep, they certainly did (at least the modern idea of armor, or "tanks"). The Brittish have always been innovators in technology and ideas. I could not think of a better nation from which to have sprung.