Announcement

**TankLover2321** · 11-10-2004, 06:10 PM

This strange question has been posed over and over again. Why did the Germans make so few tanks but numerous in design and engineering and the Allies made so many. The Soviets made tens of thousands of T-34s and KV-1s. The Allies made just as many Shermans, Grants, and Churchills. But most of the time when engaged in tank to tank battles the technically superior German tanks, even the Panzer IIIs and Panzer IVs, would destroy most of its adversary. Their modifying designs allowed for maximum flexibility. They only faced one or two types of adversaries, each with the same weakness in armor and firepower.
The Germans lost the AFV war because of several factors. They include artillery, airpower, and naval power of the Allies, Hitler's insane deployment and strategy, and low supplies. Rommel had to abandon many of his tanks going to and back from El Alamein due to shortage in fuel, and constant attack from the air, and Hitler's ignorance of this very crucial theatre. On D-Day many German tanks were lost by shelling from battleships and bombing raids. But they still managed to kill in purely tank on tank engagements more tanks than they lost themselves.
The engineering design of the Germans were ingenious their theory of multiple tank varients live to this day. Many nations have their tanks modified to serve various purposes. The same is true for other AFVs. But the factor was that the massive losses sustained were not in failure of design but failure in proper deployment and use.

**Gary Cain** · 11-10-2004, 06:30 PM

Hey Tank Lover,

What exactly do you mean by proper deployment and use?

Gary

Originally posted by TankLover2321

This strange question has been posed over and over again. Why did the Germans make so few tanks but numerous in design and engineering and the Allies made so many. The Soviets made tens of thousands of T-34s and KV-1s. The Allies made just as many Shermans, Grants, and Churchills. But most of the time when engaged in tank to tank battles the technically superior German tanks, even the Panzer IIIs and Panzer IVs, would destroy most of its adversary. Their modifying designs allowed for maximum flexibility. They only faced one or two types of adversaries, each with the same weakness in armor and firepower.
The Germans lost the AFV war because of several factors. They include artillery, airpower, and naval power of the Allies, Hitler's insane deployment and strategy, and low supplies. Rommel had to abandon many of his tanks going to and back from El Alamein due to shortage in fuel, and constant attack from the air, and Hitler's ignorance of this very crucial theatre. On D-Day many German tanks were lost by shelling from battleships and bombing raids. But they still managed to kill in purely tank on tank engagements more tanks than they lost themselves.
The engineering design of the Germans were ingenious their theory of multiple tank varients live to this day. Many nations have their tanks modified to serve various purposes. The same is true for other AFVs. But the factor was that the massive losses sustained were not in failure of design but failure in proper deployment and use.

**Laurence Strong** · 11-10-2004, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by panzerboy39

Accounts of large percentages of panzer divisions over-all combat strength due to mechanical loss are a tell-tale sign that something was wrong with the way they designed/maintained their panzers. panzerboy39

Take into account if the parts don't make it to the rear or front lines, depending on the degree of repair required, YOU can't fix it, so it's going to be abandoned.

When you are the one retreating after the battle, you wont be recovering any of your disabled vehicles

The use of slave labor resulted in sabotaged parts that would not work, I also have no great desire to dig out the exact stats

No fuel no movement.

**Gary Cain** · 11-11-2004, 12:11 AM

Hey Laurence,

You are correct in what you say. I don't know exactly what the other fellow means. Just a quick perusal of after action reports and loss figures shows they were used pretty damn effectively. But as you said, no gas no move. I have long had the opinion that the strategic bombing campaign did one real good thing and that was navigate fighters deep into Germany so they could strafe their way back home, and destroy everything that moves on the way.
The Germans could build it they just couldn't move it.

Gary

Originally posted by Laurence Strong

Take into account if the parts don't make it to the rear or front lines, depending on the degree of repair required, YOU can't fix it, so it's going to be abandoned.

When you are the one retreating after the battle, you wont be recovering any of your disabled vehicles

The use of slave labor resulted in sabotaged parts that would not work, I also have no great desire to dig out the exact stats

No fuel no movement.

Announcement

German 'Technical Superiority' was it at all?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread