Production numbers of tanks!?

[Matt Weber]

Just saw a special last night on the History Channel. It was on tank crews of WWII. I was totally shocked when they listed the production numbers of allied tanks versus the German tanks.
The Tiger tank was in production from late 1942-early 1944. Just over 1 1/2 years. The Germans produce about 1,300 Tigers during that period.

Meanwhile the American M4 Sherman was in production from 1941-1945. The Americans produced over 49,000 Shermans!!!!

If that number scares you then just look at the Russians. The T34 was in production from 1940-1945. During that time the Russians produced over 60,000 T34 tanks!


I knew the Germans were outnumbered, and I know that the Tiger tank kicked some serious butt, but at those odds, how did they ever expect to stop the allies?

I guess it is just a testimony to the German tank designs, and to the courage and skill of the German tank crews that they were able to hold out as long as they did against such overwhelming numbers as these!

Matt

[moranimal]

It gets worse

The Germans produced just under 30,000 armored vehicles of all types during WWII, including half-tracks. It just goes to show that taking on the three of the world's greatest industrial powers was just a tad bit on the difficult side.

You know, we're talking about how many tanks and other vehicles were really destroyed by aircraft in WWII. I wonder how many vehicles never made it off the factory floor because of strategic bombing? Note that postwar studies indicated that strategic bombing did slow down the German effort, but only the bombing of petroleum and other critical war materials had any real effect. Overall, strategic bombing was considered somewhat of a failure. Although the Russians were impressed when they entered Berlin.

[Greg]

"Quantity vs Quality"

Should your army have the best tanks in the world (but not very many), or a whole bunch of mediocre tanks that will get the job done?

In the history of tank warfare, this question seems to have gone both ways. Clearly the Germans had little overall chance with their really great tanks against the masses of inferior Russian and American armor. On the other hand, there have been instances (some of the Arab-Israeli wars) where the "underdog" in terms of numbers of tanks won in the end through better training, better tactics, and sometimes better tanks.

What has sometimes disturbed me with this question is how the US Army looks at it. Since the 70s the US Army has tried to have the best tanks, going for quality over quantity. I don't know how well that would have worked in conventional mechanized warfare against the Warsaw Pact in Europe. When I was a young'un in my M60A1 and M60A3 on the border in Germany, I really don't think we could have stopped all those T-62s and T-72s, or even bunches of T-55s. After we got the M1? Maybe, but I'm glad we never had to put it to the test.

Greg

[Wirbelwind]

Never forget the design features of the German tanks...

They had innovative technology and will you just look at the difference in 'welding-techniques'.

It truly struck me when I saw the Panther (not completely finished yet) standing next to a T-34 in the Overloon (Holland) 'War and resistancemuseum'. If you just look at the way the hull of the Panther is welded with that __|--|__|--|__ (I couldn't find the words so I hope you understand the 'drawn example') structure compared to the crude welding of the T-34... It's staggering!

[Matt Weber]

I agree that the German welding techniques were much better, but that is one of the reasons why it took them so long to make the tanks!

Greg,
As for your scenario. I believe that the Western allies always assumed that central Europe would have been overrun by the Warsaw pact within the first few days. The Allies relied heavily on thier overwhelming air power along with thier short, medium, and long range (nuclear) weapons. (like the Pershing missles!)
I agree with you though, I'm very glad that we never had to test this theory out! It would have been a bloody mess!

As for today. Just look at the latest war in Iraq. The US military tanks total dominated the battlefield. I don't know the exact number of Iraqi tanks destroyed, but my friend in the Army says that we only lost one M1a1, and that one just started on fire, and the crew abandoned it safely. It was recoved the very next day, and will be repaired, and returned to service.

If I had to go into a tank battle today. I wouldn't want anything less than the M1a1. The only other tank I would probably take would be the German Leopard II. Nothing else would do for me!

Matt

[Greg]

Matt,

I totally agree on the superiority of the Abrams; I wouldn't want to be fighting from any other tank either! M1A2 *should* be better than an M1A1, but I'm more familiar with the M1A1.

When we fought the Iraqis in Desert Storm, most of the lop-sided tank battle victories resulted from the far superior M1A1 vs the (what turned out to be not so great) T-72, but also from superior Allied training and maneuver, knocked out Iraqi command and control, etc. No M1s were lost to enemy fire in Desert Storm.

As I understand it from reports from Gulf War II, most of the remaining Iraqi tanks had actually been destroyed by air power before the USMC and 3rd Infantry Division tankers got to them. At last count three M1A1s had been "knocked out" in combat - all belonging to 3-7 Cavalry in 3rd ID - two knocked out from behind by antitank guns mounted on trucks that infiltrated the column during a snad storm, and one tank fell into a river and had to be abandoned (I'm sure it was recovered). From what I've seen, it doesn't look like there were but a few tank-on-tank engagements in Gulf War II. The only armor crew KIA that I heard of was a driver who was shot by small arms while sticking up out of his hatch, and didn't have a flak vest on.

Back to what might have happened if the Cold War turned hot along the border with East Germany - when we were sitting on the border in the Fulda Gap watching the East Germans, we didn't think about being overrun and the whole issue being decided with nukes, though of course that would probably have happened. Our little piece of border was the most important place in the world to us, and we just *knew* that we were going to repulse the East Germans and Russians who would come against us! Though like I said, before we got the M1s in Germany, I really wonder...

Kinda off topic of WWII tanks, I guess...

Regards,
Greg

[cbo]

Re: It gets worse

Originally posted by moranimal
The Germans produced just under 30,000 armored vehicles of all types during WWII, including half-tracks. It just goes to show that taking on the three of the world's greatest industrial powers was just a tad bit on the difficult side.

You dont give the Germans full credit for their efforts.

The Germans produced about 24,000 tanks during WWII. Add to that about 10,000 assault guns, about 8,000 SP-guns, 5,000 tank-destroyers and over 20,000 armoured half-tracks. On top of that a number of specialized armoured vehicles (command, observation, ARVs etc.). (Chamberlain & Ellis: "Encyclopedia of German tanks of WWII" - figures are ballpark.)

The allies still made much more equipment though.

Claus B

[Christian Anker]

If we add all of the Panzer, and their conversions (but not including captured equipment and not counting a converted vehicle twice), we'll end up with 50,017. Then comes the half.tracks and armoued cars.

[moranimal]

Rather than relying on memory ...

... I looked at the Encylopedia of German Tanks, a handy little volume. (A wise choice.) Just over 26,000 tanks were produced, 10,000 Stugs, plus other tank destroyers, half-tracks, armored cars, etc., for a total of 89,000 armored vehicles and change during the war years. Since the US stopped producing half-tracks at the end of 1944 because they were too many, and the British were using Shermans and Stuarts without turrets as reconaissance vehicles and troop carries, I can only wonder what the total armored production for the Soviet Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom must have been.