Quantity vs. Quality: Would Germany Have Fared Better Without Tigers and Panthers?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 พ.ค. 2024
- Few machines in the history of armored warfare cast as imposing a shadow as the Tiger and Panther tanks of Nazi Germany.
These fearsome beasts, with their thick-armor and devastating firepower have become iconic symbols of German military-might during World War II.
Yet, amidst their legendary status lies a contentious debate: would Germany have fared just as well or even better without these heavyweights?
Some say these tanks were the apex predators of WWII while others argue they drained precious resources that could have been better spent on churning out reliable workhorses like the Panzer IV or StuG III.
Join us, as we explore whether Germany's focus on Tigers and Panthers was a tactical triumph or a costly misstep.
#tigertank #panthertank #germantank
![คุณอาเรียโต๊ะข้างๆ พูดรัสเซียหวานใส่ซะหัวใจจะวาย ตอนที่ 2 [ซับไทย] 【Ani-One Thailand】](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kbbfYakMY8k/mqdefault.jpg)
Germany did not have the manpower to staff "quantity" They built heavy tanks to offer max protection to their highly trained crews.
That makes sense and it fed right into Hitler's mania for bigger tanks.
@@robinbrowne5419So you agree with his sentiment but still call it “mania” 😂😂
@@mvegetaxachilles7211 Hmm.. Actually I don't agree with the whole sentiment of having wwii. I was just agreeing with the reason why the Germans built heavy tanks and pointing out that Hitler would have been all for it given his mania for everything big or enormous.
@@robinbrowne5419 Yeah I agree, Britain and France really shouldn’t have started WW2
@@mvegetaxachilles7211 Ok. Whatever nonsense you say 👎
I think that a lot of people here are misunderstanding the role of heavy tanks during WWII, and the way tanks in general were classified. German heavy tanks like the Tiger I & II were not not meant to be general purpose tanks like a modern MBT. They were designed with a specific purpose in mind and that was to be an offensive tank to break through heavily defended enemy lines. They were to punch holes in enemy lines paving the way for lighter, and more mobile medium tanks would push on through to exploit the gaps like the cavalry of old. While the mediums did that, the heavies would be pulled back to prepare for the next offensive. Of course, that was on paper and Germany eventually found itself on the defensive and the heavies now had to be used more frequently and more like a medium.
Germans had to drive the Tigers all over the place to try and stop breakthroughs. The drivetrains were not built for extended driving. Also they never produced enough recovery tanks, so a stuck King Tiger was lost even if in very good working order.
and that's the one job they're the worse at...
German Heavy tank are notorious for causing bridge to collapse and road to buckle. This and unavoidable transmission issue meant that heavy tank can't sustain offense which really hamper offensive momentum, which is something crucial for "lighting war/Blitz."
This can be backed by the battle of the bulge were Joachim Panzer division were completely hampered by his heavy tank thus resulting in the division destruction. There's also an account of a defensive panther tank taking out a dozen or so tank/vehicle, most of which were killed while the panther is in a stationary position.
Problem that Tiger I fell in soviet hands right on 1st appearing on front, Tiger II when appeared on Eastern front in 13th of august 1944 3 tanks were destroyed 1 damaged, after battles Soviets capture 12 Tiger II , 3 of them were UNDAMAGED, so USSR knew what to wait since start
Yes. But there are reports that the heavy tanks had already problems with Soviet medium tanks. And the Soviets also had heavy tanks for themselves.
The T34 is the most known tank of the Soviets. But that was also just one medium mass produced tank and not the best of their arsenal.
The problem of the punch hole idea is racism. That no one believed slaws could be equal and just find something that is as good as. The Soviets had better tanks.
@@stemill1569 this is bullshit. The German tanks were better. Soviet tanks were also pretty good but nowhere near a match, either in armor quality, optics, or doctrine. In terms of guns and mobility they were about equal.
I find the argument made by many historians that it was a mistake to invest in Panzer V and VI hilarious. But they ignore that the German high command knew very well that they would never win a quantity war against the allies. Numbers are a great advantage and every army will always try to win in numbers, but if you don't have numbers, you have no choice but to invest in quality and pray to be enough...
germans where wrong from the beginnig of the war,never minde the tanks or others military pieces,but just only man power,in 1943 they have little over 7 mln soldiers,they pull thier resources to the max,and the same time ,russians have 15 mln soldiers,combat ready,plus 5 mln in reserve,so german blitzkrieg go kaput on the east front.
@@marmay6874 That's not the only reason. Germany lacked the oil to continue such a long war and as the war lingered, Germany doomed.
@@prangos6072 not only oil,if ypou start war with state like russia,you have to be ready for years of war,heavy fighting with enormous number of dead poeple and last equpimnet,germans do not have this resource,unlimited human power,as history shows,russian always are loosing on the begining ,but then then get stronger every year,so germany was not strong enough for russia,1943 was the pick momentum for germans,they have little over 7 mln soldiers in total,but on two fronts,thye come to the limits,back in the country,kids where working in the factories,womens and elderies,slave from all over europa,in the same time,russian have 15 mln soldiers,combat ready,and 5 mln reservist,and the kaput come with 2 years.
@poiujnbvcxdswq "Panzer V and VI weren`t actually quality"
There is not a single tank of unanimous quality. Any tank that I exalted here (nevermind tank, anything really), some people would call me names for it. Some people would say even the Mark III Centurions were bad.
I dont know your definition of quality, but most would say the Panzers were up there. I suppose they could be anything if your definition of quality is fluid enough.
If Germans had started to make Stug 3s in big numbers from December 1941 with only P4s there might be an argument that the war would have lasted longer...
Not enough fuel + not enough soldiers = emphasis on quality over quantity
this
Perfect response. Even if they did mass produce the same amount of tanks as the allies, they didn't have enough gas to fuel what relatively little they produced in our reality.
German tanks were gas guzzlers and much heavier and much more complicated to maintain and parts supply (a side effect of quality). Actually, Germany bets on a quick victory and capturing of soviet oilfields. When this plan was disrupted, everything started to go wrong. The whole problem lies in German (actually western) war doctrine. Hitler was simply unable to understand that supplying fuel and parts to his tanks would be such a difficult task for him. Germany didn't lack soldiers. Initially, the number of soldiers engaged in German side is comparatively higher. But without oil and parts, everything is just trash.
Well they were known for being unreliable and complicated I don't like the BMW of the tank world
@@rogerc6533which is why they were stupid for declaring war on the world
Panthers were not expensive. They only cost a bit more than a Pz IV. Tigers, King Tigers, JagdTigers, etc. were completely unnecessary. A gentleman at the Tank Museum described the JagdTiger as an affront to logisticians everywhere. I agree with him.
Tigers were breakthrough tanks, they idea to combine them with medium tanks to increase the overall breakthrough and armor efficiency was good.
They could make timewise 2 x panzer 4s for every Panther. That starts to make a huge difference over time and the P4s were far easier to maintain. BTW I Love Panthers.
@@vincnetjones3037 That is not accurate.
Panther: 117,o00 RM
Pz IV: 103,000 RM
A Panther cost barely a bit more than a IV
@@nightshade4186 After Kursk, the Tiger was never really used that way. It became a very good point defense tank and Tiger units were used as fire brigades.
The Panther, with its great frontal armor, easy to use gun, and superior mobility, could probably do that better. Really, the only advantage the Tiger had on the Panther was side armor.
@@patwilson2546 Thanks Pat for the cost, but the production time was very different. Panzer 4 weighed 25 tonnes and a Panther 45 tonnes. so about 2:1. The maintenance was also very different. Say for example the Panther Boogies.. Brilliant design and gave a superb ride, but incredibly complex and broke down a lot. Again I love Panthers.
Most Tigers were not destroyed by the enemy but by their own crews after they broke down, got bogged down or ran out of fuel.
The Panther came too late and at a time when Germany was running out of certain metals needed to produce high-grade armor and working parts of the engine resulting in major problems with engine life and catastrophic armor failures. It also consumed large quantities of fuel which Germany sorely lacked.
" broke down, got bogged down or ran out of fuel. "
Yes in 1944 December and after.
Before, the Tiger was reliable as a sherman.
The idea that most Tigers were destroyed by their crews is just a myth. Battlefield surveys and official documents clearly show that The majority was destroyed by the enemy
Tigers and Panthers were mostly fine. Tigers were rushed into battle and sure they may have broken down a lot, but their early arrival meant they allowed the Germans to have an advantage when the war turned defensive for them in 1943. Early Panthers were also rushed had a lot of problems, but the later variants had most of these problems sorted out and they were pretty reliable. The biggest problem for Germany at this point was lack of fuel. Large majority of Tiger and Panther losses in 1944-45 were basically the Germans launching some form of offensive with their panzer spearheads, then they ran out of fuel midway and had to abandon all the tanks.
Very true. Also, can’t overlook that plenty if other tanks had teething problems at first. The IS series were a mess, the early models of the Churchill tank were horrendously bad, even the famously reliable Sherman had some issues that didn’t get worked out until the very end of the war with powerplants and transmissions.
My Boss used to command a Sherman Tank in the Royal Tank Corps, he told us of being informed that," King Tigers were lurking somewhere ", and of coming across 7 US Shermans with their engines running but the crews had legged it rather than face the King Tiger(s).
Being a resource intensive tank has nothing to do with being the apex predator, which they were. The P IV, Stug and smaller jagdpanzers were quite capable tanks, but Germany was short of personnel, fuel, technical support and logistics support, so large numbers of anything was impossible. Their only option was quality. Its the same way NATO thought in the Cold War.
So, NATO would have lost a Hot War as well. LOL
@@marcelbork92 Read my post again. If you want to use NATO v Russia or the Germans, put the correct armies in the correct context and you get the right result. Let me know if you need help with the logic. I suspect you will.
NATO had 2-3 times more manpower than Soviet union... wtf ure talking about? It's about technology and arms race. Russian tanks were better in 1941 (that was an unpleasant surprise for german army, but they were using numbers, coordination and mobility of pz 2 and 3). In 1943-1944 german tanks were better. But in 1944-1945 russians put into the battle IS-1 and IS-2 which were +- equal to Tigers and heavy AT vehicles.
@@vasjanihrenashin9610 WTF has this got to do with NATO? An no, Russian tanks were not better in 1941. T-34 is on a par with P-IV with some better characteristics and some worse ones. Russian losses were 10:1 v Germans. It was numbers that won, not quality.
Why was the Panther, Tiger, Maus etc. such a substantial diversion from their existing tank force then? Operationally maneuverable and ubiquitous.
Why did their doctrine still emphasize localized offensives even when they lost the initiative and were on the strategic defensive? Something which slow and unreliable tanks were bad at but Panzer III & IV were designed around?
If personnel, fuel, technical support and logistics support were in short supply would you exponentially complicate your logistics train by multiplying the number of types of panzers you have to support each with of increasing complexity?
Also you are wrong about the T-34 being on a par with P-IV during 1941. The P-IV was an infantry support tank armed with a low velocity gun, it was the Panzer III that was expected to fight other tanks. What was unique about the T-34 was that it was as fast and better armored as the Panzer IV but with a 75 mm gun that overmatched anything the germans had.
Declaring war on just about everyone from Russia to the USA was a bad idea.
You build more tanks, you not only need more crews to man them but you also need more supporting personnel and vehicles to make them function. Panzergrenadiers, fuel, ammo, maintenence, engineers, Flak, field kitchen, medical, signals etc. Armour cannot function properly on it own in a vacuum. That's why the hastily formed panzer brigades in autumn 1944 failed. Because they didnt have sufficient supporting echlons.
So more Panzer IVs and Stugs would not have served the Germans any better.
10,000 enemy tanks, assault guns and tank destroyers knocked out by less than 2,000 Tigers says it all.
@lyndoncmp5751 Something like a million germans were manning flak guns in Berlin against allied air power, imagine if all those men had been trained to use tanks and the resources put towards Flak 88s was instead spent on armoured vehicles.
well,this is the reason why west never belive that germans go actually to war against all other europe states,not enough men power,not enough military equipment ,no natural resources ,they last the war the very day they started.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-
Yeah the Germans had (self inflicted) problems. They had to worry about the east, the west, the south.... and up in the air 😂.
Germans had enough personnel. At the end of the war there were still hundreds of thousands of infantrymen. What they lacked is for the most part fuel. But lack of fuel was the reason they started the war anyway.
Yes Germany didn't have enough resources (including fuel) to support greater numbers of tanks effectively. The supporting echelons, which I cited, required vehicles and consequently fuel.
More tanks = more support echelons and thus more resources needed.
The Germans did everything they could to increase kill ratio to offset their shortage of men and equipment.
They did very well at this effort.
Like adding more horses?😆
@@peternystrom921 Exactly, as horses saved fuel and resources
Yes.
Yeah, kind of, they could have of done better. But your right they did everything they could within their capabilities.
@@de7403they should have invaded uk
Instead of Russia
Keep troops to defend east, defence would garner a higher kill ratio
And use other troops on n.africa
Pretty obvious
My vote would be to produce the Panther, but nothing bigger. The Panther was capable to handle anything on the battlefield during WW2.
Nah, It performed well on the Eastern front because of the long range engagements, but on the other fronts where the average engagement distance was 500m it didn't perform that well. Moreover it had a very bad reverse speed (only 3km/h), which made impossible to fire and get to cover quickly. It's more or less the same problem of the Russian T-72 (poor reverse speed).
panther was crap & not needed. A mix of tiger 1 & stug would have been far far cheaper when considering parts, training, crews et etc.
@@222rich nah tiger is absolutely crap, outdated design makes it easy to pen the middle armour, panther was far better with a better armour piercing gun then the tiger plus it was far cheaper then the tiger, faster and almost better in every way, the only thing that lets it down was the traverse speed although they managed to fix that with the A variant.
@@AssassinIsAfk combat reports or childish online tank games?
@@222rich both. Just do some research and you will understand how the tiger is actually pretty bad for what it was also those childish tanks are based off of combat reports and get as close as possible unless we are talking about world of tanks that's definitely for children.
Superb presentation: both in accuracy of explanatory analysis (in actual historicity) and realistic historical evaluation.
Germany probably performed as well as it could have. And a lot better than it should have, considering the French Armed Forces were considered to be the best in the world at the start of the war, with both France and the UK being better equipped and more motorized than Germany ever managed during the war.
Germany‘s strategic position was just too disadvantageous, especially after the US joined the war and started supplying the Soviets.
They didn't, they could've done better if they did not invest in the tiger or panther tanks. But that's inevitable because H*ler and his goons are incompetent
Right and how do you prove that theory?
Haha! France and UK more motorised at the start definitely not during the war, the UK military was what 5 million strong all branches at its peak Germany was 11 million....
The Germany army had what 8 million men at its peak vs the UK 2.9 million....
Your assessment is just picking and chosen different parts of the war to suit your flawed assessment sorry.
Most of US lend lease supplies was after 1941 when barbarossa failed, it has small impact on result. USSR fought vs nearly all europe , its funny when people say "germany" instead of "axis". Manpower and supplies from many many countries was supplying axis since 1st day of barbarossa
@@GggGgg-ek3dw Similar to WW1 Germany was the big player in the European theater, with other European Axis members mostly acting as support. Without Lend-Lease the Soviet Union would have collapsed in 1943, for lack of food, clothing, steel, engines etc. The initiative on the Eastern Front only permanently shifted in the Red Army‘s favor with the Battle of Kursk.
@@RichelieuUnlimited germans had only chance to win war by taking moscow fast and force soviets to make peace , this plan failed in end in 1941 and turned in exhausting war in which axis had no chance. Lend lease make war bit easier for soviets but it didnt affect total result of war, even german generals told about it. Read Manstein and Guderian memoirs , they knew better than us
By 1944, germany youth of 15 or 16 years old were sent to front unit, especialy panzer unit. Quantity was not an option for them.
The overworked engine and transmission in the big cats lead to many being abandoned due to mechanical issues , which lead to a reduction in their overall capabilities as " breakthrough tanks or firemen " , then because of the allied bombing the German/axis railway system , transporting such tanks became an issue , added to the fact that towards the end of WW2 , the quality of the (tank) armour was reduced , this also as a result of allied bombing factories that supplied components for the tanks
Hitler constantly demanded more armour, bigger guns, Panther was to be 30 tons but became 45, Tiger to be 45 but became 56 , the Gerabox of both were not uprated which is why they constantly broke down as the 'Gear Teeth' constantly stripped
Allied tanks broke down all the time, the diference was that the allies had the fuel, equipment, personnel and time to recover, repair and send those tanks back to the front. The germans weren't.
@RafaelSantos-pi8py The race belongs not to the swiftist nor strongest, but to those most adaptable to change.
@@josephgallacher3729
I think it kinda goes like this:
- development team has tank design
- Hitler demands that existing tank design be up-armoured
- development team slaps more armour on existing tank design
- development team makes adjustments to existing tank design to compensate for additional weight
- oversights occur due to rushed development
I think this explains something like the Panthers final drive for example. It was simply designed for a far lighter tank. Gear teeth would quite literally shear off from the additional strain.
@josephgallacher3729
That's not the reason.
The gearbox of the Tigers and final drives were totally fine.
The Panthers final drive housing in the d model was to weak and could bent and pull the gears out if alignment.
This was fixed in the A model.
In late 1944 when Germany lost their last access to Manganese and tungsten, the quality of their bearings and gears dropped dramatically. And all tanks fuffered from this, even panzer iv and Hetzers had final drive issues.
The Panthers gears were strong enough by design. Bergepanthers could easily be recovere even the heaviest german tanks.
The Panther was an attractive looking tank.
18:25, Flex Seal Guy: “That’s A LOTTA PENETRATION!!!”
Well done and researched nice work!
All things considered German going for higher quality AFVs makes perfect sense. Germany was hopelessly over matched VS the Soviet when it came to man power and industrial capacity. Furthermore, when you add in British and Commonwealth capacity. Germany had no other choice than to try for individual Tank superiority. Then declaring War on the United States well that was insane.
Man, if Germany had all these youtube experts back then...
*sarcasm- I had to edit for this, it seems it flied over some people's heads
everything would endup pretty similiar
It does not matter because Hitler was very good in sabotaging German war effort. An example was the ME 262 jet fighter, it was ready in 1943 but Hitler delayed its production to 1944 because he wanted it to be designed to carry bombs.
literally lmao people in history arent just dumber than us today, if there is a simple answer chances are they thought of something you didnt
@@pascualluisbedia5660How interesting how everything was always hitler’s fault and that everyone else in charge was just being suppressed by Hitler, according to everyone else in charge.
And the word “flied” in that sentence almost flew over mine
Thanks for this 👍
Great work on the Information on these vehicles and They're transformation.
Really?!
Maybe they could have done as much with their original lighter tanks. But we wouldn't have such cool modeling subjects if they didn't have the Tiger and Panther. Such beautiful and awesome tanks!
The reason why Germany failed was the tank war was that like the M-4 Sherman, the T-34 was “Good enough” to get the job done, when coupled with the manpower that the USSR could bring to bear on production and tank crewing.
German Over/Under engineering. All German tanks were overweight for the drive train designed. Transmissions on the Panther broke down on average after 100k of driving, It took
1/2 to a full day to replace the transmission. Same with the Tiger. Suspension was very time consuming to repair. How many transmissions do you have to build for each tank just to drive from
the railyard to the front line? How confident does the crew feel after 100 km on that drive train?
Driver skill had a big impact on the lifespan of the drive train and tranny.
Panther turret was vulnerable to side shots from the 75mm Sherman. Certainly not an advantage over the Pz IV.
Germany's Cat Tanks where a fuel guzzling maintenance disaster, but they had a Big Gun!
You would think that with the engineering brilliance in Germany they could have done soooo much better!!
Thanks FactBytes for this really insightful commentary!
The panther was a bloody good tank and very effective it was a shortage of resources that was the problem especially the rare earths that made the quality of steel inferior to earlier in the war .the stug was exceptionally good as well but it wasn't a assault weapon like the tiger and panther
it was not the tank, what made the tigers great. it was the fear
There is much to be said to this point. To this day somethings reputations are enough it will cause the enemy to make choices they didn't need to from fear.
The desithion to focus on heavly armed and armored tanks like the panther and tiger makes sense looking at the shortages of germany also knowing the fact that the panzer IV and III where dead ends also to everyone that says "quantity is a quality of it self" no is not quality and having the resourses to keep in the figth those units is way more important than just sheer numbers also can whe stop saing the sherman was good only beacose it was mass produced
Indeed.
You need to factor in your own strengths and weaknesses when designing pretty much anything when you’re involved in a war.
When you’ve got a supply line several thousands of miles long, the size and weight of what you’re attempting to transport can become an issue. Hence the Sherman’s size, its weight, and easy repair in the field. Quality is less of an issue, though you need something that’s going to work decently, and then *keep on working,* because capable, well trained workers aren’t going to be especially common at the front.
@@dennisyoung4631
"Quality is less of an issue,"
Yes, when you have many thousands of them and you have vast numerical superiority. When you don't have that then quality becomes a bigger issue for the other side.
Without air superiority Germany was doomed, never mind quality or quantity.
It was the logical move. Germany did not have the industry to pump out huge numbers of 'good enough' tanks, their only option was to trade through efficiency.
an outstanding presentation
Glad you think so!
8:27 There she is!...Exact German Tiger one T & E footage/situation as referring to my former comment on FactBytes recent: 'Panzer Optics' vid...
Such being track-popping conditions present in loose, deep or previously churned up topsoil when sloughing "Neutral steering-ish" the tank as an assault gun would VS. simply turning the turret with the T1's rather slow traverse/rotational turret speed...
Soil &/or rocks of varying sizes will push its way betwixt, under, around & build up on the backside of the front-most road-wheels in the direction of turn, & between.under the track blocks & road wheel(s) themselves. Sometimes inducing enough additional tension to !POP! a track section or track block pin. The removal of the 1st wheel station outermost road wheel not only helped with mud/dirt building up behind the road wheel when turning in deeper/softer topsoils, but additionally being of utmost importance during freezing weather conditions where caked mud would always clump up & freeze rock-solid behind the sprocket & 1st wheel stations...
So putting a bit of extra stress on the spring/weight bearing torsion bars & front shock absorber's, or experiencing a bit more increased ground pressure up front was well worth the compromise. T1's Torsion bars tended to snap @ or near the front & rear shock absorber stations as it already was...
During non winter/early, or late freeze seasons, the 'simple' way for crewmen to check adequate ground pressure for the 57 ton tank, was for two crewmen to exit said tank, one to jump on the back 'Piggy-Back" of the other & while 2nd crewman held the weight of the other, the 2nd individual then holding, or bearing the combined weight of both, to hop/jump up n' down on one foot/boot (Or maybe just stand & maybe repeatedly bend @ the knee w/additional downwards force, or pressure? As such sounds kinda injury prone as to continual practice? Im CERTAIN the PanzerWaffe would MUCH rather temporarily lose a crew member due to a sprained ankle than lo$e a precious & UN-recoverable Tiger 1 due too poor judgement on any crew-mans part?)...
-If ones boot/foot sank into the topsoil well more more than beyond an inch, or inch inna 1/2, then the tank may have mobility issues as the topsoil & present ground conditions may be too water-log'd or soft for sufficient operation(s) of a vehicle of that weight & size....
Again FB. great presentation/info!
Well done, thank you!
Mu pleasure!
Germany's main issues that they faced, especially more so later on in the war, were shortages of oil and men. Having more Panzer IV's instead of Tigers and Panthers wouldn't really have helped anything, and actually maybe things worse, especially oil, having more tanks on the field would have made their depleted oil reserves run dry even quicker.
A Panther V barely cost more than a Panzer IV, there would have been negligible cost savings by not building the Panther. Most of the problems the Panther had, were also possessed by the Panzer IV. BTW the Panther came into combat, Germany was already lacking in materials needed for better steels and armor, so reliability became an issue for all vehicles.
While the Tiger I was much more expensive than a Panzer IV, about 4 times, it came when Germany armor and steel were still superior to Soviets produced ones. This allowed the Tiger to impact the battlefield in a manner that allowed the Panzer IV to be more effective.
With their armored skirts on, it was hard to tell a late model Panzer IV from a Tiger I, this made all the existing Panzer IVs more powerful, as the enemy had to give them greater respect than warranted.
Not really. Panther was a poor design. Battalion of Panthers on a 100 km march would have roughly half of their vehicles break down without any enemy action. Thus, it was completely unsuited for Bewegungskrieg.
@@aleksazunjic9672 Cause you read storys of a few broken Panthers , you say all are like that ? But who knocked out 50.000 T-34's at the Eastern front then ? All keyboard warriors always tell us how bad German tanks were , but who knocked out all this enemy tanks then ? Or were they even worse ?
@@5co756 These are not stories, these are official German reports . Try to find for example report about readiness from I Abt 13 Panzer Division from 18 Oct 1943 - from 71 Panthers, only 26 were operational, 39 in need of repairs due to mechanical breakdowns. Also, there were not 50 000 knocked down T-34s, at best 40 000. And they were usually victims of PaKs , then StuGs, infantry weapons like Panzerfaust etc ...
@@aleksazunjic9672 Dude they build 6000 Panthers in 3 different versions in different companies , D , A and G , we don't take the F version into account . The early D version from 1943 had many problems , but they fixed that with every version of the Panther . This tank was rushed into production .
Only cause you read a report from 1943 , you wanna say all Panthers had this problems ? Stop spreading BS under every video of WW2 , just look at the Swedish tank mobility test of a Panther vs a Sherman . The Panther outclassed the Sherman in every way .
Another big problem of Germany was slave labor , some guys sabotaged the tanks or engines .
@@aleksazunjic9672 45 000 T-34s were lost, it was a coffin on tracks, but a tidal wave of coffins.
Germany didn't have enough of its own resources, oil, iron etc.
Even if Germany could have cranked out thousands of additional Panzers, there was the issue of staffing them with competent drivers.
In Thomas Anderson's books on the Panther and Tiger tanks, he quoted written reports by tank commanders, from the latter part of WW II, where the issue of incompetent tank drivers were a significant factor with the mechanical breakdowns of the Panzers.
The commanders were pleading with HQ for better trained or competent tank drivers.
Can hardly call them quality when the suspension used to clap on them. And breakdowns were a massive problem....
Would they have pulled the extra tanks with horses? They still didn't have fuel either way
A major problem was germany kept modifying designs. They had problems with parts for the large variety of types. It was necessary to send back tanks to germany for re building. If there was a decent logistical supply chain they could have been repaired in the field.
This was very good thank you. I didn’t realize the panther gun was that good.
That's the best technical documentary on tank I've seen. You clearly explained the disparity beetwen German and Russian vehicules as well as the end result benefits of their resolve to surpass russian tanks.
Germany could not match the fraction of numbers of Russia alone and of USA and UK and Russia together their production was laughable.
I wish I could travel back in time and sit down with the Austrian painter and tell him what he needed to know to win.
what is your nationality? I wonder.
@@Ze_Hans American
@@BaseK59 You must be really desperate buddy.
@@Ze_Hans yes, desperate to save the world from joooish communism.
Yes, the Panzer IV with it's high velocity 75 could have been mass produced and appropriately upgraded. The 88 could have been mobilized with a low profile chassis to keep up with the blitz. Thank GOD that they didn't.
Well done 👍🏻 Danke
Der Tiger 1 war eine fortschrittliche und überlegene Kriegsmaschine, die sich von 1942 bis 1944 auf dem Schlachtfeld durchsetzte. Es hatte auch einen psychologischen Effekt, indem es seinen Panzerbesatzungen ein hohes Maß an Selbstvertrauen gab und den Feind in Angst und Schrecken versetzte = aus diesen Gründen war es definitiv ein Erfolg. 👍👍
Vereinbart. Psychologische Auswirkungen werden von Ingenieuren in der modernen Kriegsführung oft übersehen.
Me 5 years ago: “lol Germany was dumb they should’ve just spammed stugs”
Me today: “Germany should’ve doubled down and cut stug/panzer 4 production a lot sooner and focused solely on the panther.”
If I were going to mid-max this with 20/20 hindsight, I would probably still focus on lighter tanks that place greater emphasis on firepower, operational mobility, and fuel efficiency than protection. Germany didn’t have the fuel or the logistical capacity to keep the big cats fed and maintained during deep penetrating maneuvers. It is so common to be reading ww2 history, where the Germans are about to complete some major encirclement, but fail because they simply ran out of fuel or didn’t have enough fighting-capable vehicles due to breakdowns.
Lighter tanks that can go further with less fuel and maintenance probably would’ve better served Germany’s strengths in maneuver warfare, rather than heavier tanks that were really good in a defensive posture but couldn’t sustain extended offensives.
StuGs were fine, they were cheap and offered good infantry support
@@austin2407 They were more than fine; Stugs were excellent. That's not my point. I'm saying that if Germany was always going to pick this quality over quantity strategy, they should've just doubled down and phased everything else sooner. Stugs should've remained an interim solution while production was ramping up.
@@50centpb7 They did try to produce more panthers.
They planned to produce some 8,000 more than they did, but the bombing campaign stopped it.
The main tiger and panther factory was down for 12 months due to damage from bombing.
Germany also lost over 20 million barrels of sythetic oil in 1944 due to the bombing campaign.
Without the bombing campaign, Germany would have solved its oil problem in 1944 and beyond.
Very interesting, I learned a few new things about these WWII German tanks I actually hadn’t heard before 👍
Also fascinating how 2-3 of such tanks could control the whole landscape, sometimes for several days.
for me, germans in ww2 are most coolest faction, most advanced, most badass.
I think in terms of offensive operations, the Germans might have fared better fielding large numbers of thr excellent Panzer IV Ausf G or H rather than fewer Mk Vs and VIs. The Germans were always superior on an individual level in terms of training and just plain qualitative fighting ability. Even if the sloped armor of the T34 gives it an advantage, the better 75mm cannon, vastly superior optic sighting and far superior ergonomic and practical layout of the Panzers makes the IV a better tabk overall, even moreso if you factor in superior training of the crews.
This is all a moot point anyway though because by the time the Panther and Tiger came around in 1943 the Germans had already shot their shot in Russia and were on the defensive.
At that point the defensive prowess of the Panther and Tiger argue a lot in their favor. The Mark IV is still more than "good enough" in a defensive posture, but logistically Germany couldn't command the road system or rail system like they used to, and how are they going to gas up all the potential extra Mark IVs anyway. Germany was always going to lose the war once America got involved, and having waves of extra Mk IVs would just prolong the inevitable. They'd have hundreds of Mk IVs laying around with no gas instead of a smaller number of equally gasless Panthers and Tigers. Even Germany on maximum production level with MK IVs would be handily outproduced by America and Russia, and while neither the Sherman or T34 is really honestly as good as the IV, they weren't badly outclassed and the numbers would overwhelm the Wehrmacht.
If Germany was on a 1943-44 production level and invaded Russia at the same 1941 start point, produced vast numbers of even the inferior, earlier variants of the Mk IV (prior to the long barelled 75mm cannon), and didn't get into a war with America, then it's a different game.
Odds are they still lose, but they have a very real shot of achieving more in the East and possibly forcing a peace on German terms.
My distant relatives who lived during the the war told me that they personally were in awe at the incredible quality of captured Panthers and Tigers, but politics at the time made them keep quiet because the government didn't want them praising enemy equipment.
I'm glad you mentioned the often overlooked fuel disparity problem in this hypothetical analysis. While more panthers would have been an advantage, the fuel shortage Germany faced would have definitely had an effect. Germany did however manage to field many low profile stugs. They were just numerically outnumbered and couldn't replace lost equipment and crews later in the war.
Ironically, the largest numbers of Panzer IVs and Stugs were built at the same time as the Tigers and Panthers were being built.
German armour production was pretty low until late 1942/43.
why was the " oh it has sloped armour" T34 relatively easy to destroy so it became the most destroyed tank in history? could it be unfair germans didn`t care about sloped armour? and destroyed them even with the short barreld 75mm.
@@michaelpielorz9283
Despite having "advanced" sloping armour internally the T-34 was a dog. Lacked radios, no turret basket, 2 man turret, poor vision (didn't even get a commanders cupola until mid 1943) poor fire control, the ammo storage layout included shell bins on the floor that you had to stand on, hampering crew effectiveness. Etc.
@@lyndoncmp5751 The German tanks vision and sighting optics were much superior, enabling them to engage and hit targets faster and at greater ranges with their better trained crews. The first to fire accurately was often the victor. As you also stated russian tanks lacked radio communication, a serious battlefield detriment which limited their ability to coordinate, react and adapt.
The fact that each tank track linkage held its own oil reservoir, was insane. It was incredibly time consuming and costly to maintain and replace tank tracks
I like the video, which tends to be fact based and not theory. Just as a note: The Germans did use some 88s during World War I (based greatly on Naval 88s) but they fell aside after the war ended. There were discussions during the 20's and 30's about a new AA gun and the debate waffled between choosing a high velocity 75mm or 105mm to form the basis of a modern AA gun. In the end the decision was made to pick the middle caliber - 88mm. The 88 that became so well in World War II context was a new, modern weapon developed from 1930 to 1933 and "code named" the Flak 18 with some hope it might be mistaken for a World War I weapon.
Germany fought a war of manufacturing - in 1939 it had no choice about tanks except what its industry could supply and hence went to war with the training tanks (Panzer Is and Panzer IIs) right alongside the Panzer IIIs and IVs. That continued throughout the war, with the German military grabbing every captured weapon or piece of equipment - artillery, tank, rifle, half track, anything - it could lay hands on to equip its troops, given that its industry routinely failed to supply it with domestic products in the quantities needed.
At any given moment, the workhorse of the German armored units was whatever their industry could supply and supplemented by whatever their troops could acquire from the enemy. The fact that they did supply so many Panzer IVs, STuG IIIs and Panthers was a testament to dogged determination and manufacturing efficiency.
I always wonder what would happen if German has a whole lot more Stug III & IV operational.
More vehicles would have been abandoned because of fuel and spare parts
It's all academic, the war was lost for Germany the day it began.
“Quantity is quality, all its own.”
Reflection after the fact is easier than forecasting the future.
Wouldnt have mattered they were still reliant on horses when the fully mechanized allies landed at normandy.
Horses were used by all sides, not for cavalry but for mounted infantry, and pulling transport wagons for supplies, and the wounded were loaded in for the return trip. The Germans especially because they could feed horses with hay, rather than the gasoline or diesel that was in short supply.
@@jacqueslefave4296 The British and American armies were fully mechanized. No horses.
I would go quality over and over again over quantity.
I don't agree with most of the commenters here. Germany really wanted more tanks after they realized that they're gonna lose agains the soviets if the numbers remain the same. It's another question that they started wartime production too late so they never had the chance to catch up with the enemy production numbers. German tanks and other panzer vehicles built in 1942: around 5000 pieces, 1944: 19000. So they had the resources and production capacities, but they did not manage to make the right political decision early enough.
I think if you weigh the kill/death ratio of those heavy tanks, especially the Tigers, against the increased resources, you would still end up with their kill/death ratio on top, not to mention the psychological impact their presence probably had. Overall I think it would have been useless for Germany to focus on quantity since they weren't going to win that battle anyway as someone below already pointed out.
Tigers had a 12:1 knock out ratio in direct combat. Even including mechanical, lack of fuel, thrown track, stuck in a ditch etc losses it was still an impressive 5:1 rate.
biggest problem was usage the big cats should have all stayed in Russia the stugs and IV in the west and south. a tiger is no good in tight roads steep hills like ltaly where they lose all the advantages and kill there running gear on the hills where the stugs could easy hid and take out anything they are faced with other issue was the big cat are hard to drive it like giving your 16yr old a Porsche turbo as his first car this happened a lot with the cats most aces started out in stugs and move up where many tigers were given to kids because daddy was a general and ended in loss of the tank
@@vaughanerwin7195
Totally agree about Tigers in Italy. A waste sending them there, although a Tiger of Abteilung 504 did take out a New Zealand Sherman at 3,000 yards there, according to the New Zealanders. Overall though, Italy was the least effective terrain for the Tigers. Don't know why they sent a company of Elefants there either.
@@lyndoncmp5751 yes remember reading that I have the whole set 501-508 It's all most like the Germans were thinking we going to lose the war let make a bunch of cool shit for guys to make models of after the war
@@vaughanerwin7195
Maybe the Germans did a deal ahead of time with Tamiya, Dragon, Italeri etc 😝
Look at kills stugg 3
I remember reading about Irwin Rommel proposing the idea of producing large numbers rapidly moving, light armored mobile platforms, mounted with the deadly 88. I believe that would have fared well in large tank battles, mixed in with the heavies.
If Guderian had his way, there would have been no heavy tanks, opting instead of more fast-moving medium and light tanks, plus APCs and SPGs.
The king tiger was certainly not a good choice. And at least the tiger or the panther was too much regarding the industrial capacity it consume.
The Panther wasn't too much. It was only slightly more consuming in production than the PzIV but offered much more tank for the value.
@@wanderschlosser1857 You might be right about that. The germans did not consider enough the benefit of large scale industrial production regarding tanks. The king tiger was too heavy for it's motor and for it's gear box. Accordingly i don't see why they decided to develop the panther and the tiger. Maybe then the panther would have been a better choice considering it's lower cost of production. But once again from an indistrial point of view, why not just concentrte the limited industrial capacity of the coubtry on machines like the stug 3 and 4 and on the panzer 4. Wich were all good machines. Take for example the creation of the stug 3. It was a good machine, kind of cheap to produce and it was recycling the proven chassis of an outdated tank L the panzer 3. Same thing for the jetzer wich was a born out of an outdated check tank.
The resources for less than 2,000 Tigers were a drop in the bucket compared to the wastes the Germans put into the rocket programmes, which effected nothing on the battlefield.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Never ending story. The rocket program was amazing, but it was born out of a fantasy. And when you think about it, it is often fantasies and a certain idea of might that runs the mind when it take the time for the political leadership to take decisions. Take for example the construction and devlopment of the german navy in the years just before the first world war. It was a fantasy of the Kaiser. It cost huge amount of money and it could never succeed in acheiving any form of decisive superiority over the british navy. But the much much smaller submarine program of the kriegsmarine was. If the germns then realise it earlier, they would have had a much larger submarine fleet at the beginning of the war and it could have made a difference for germany.. Let say for the cost of 2 or 3 battleship. A man like Hitler and those at the head of the kriegsmarine in the thirties did not fully learned tghe lesson and the advantage of asymetric warfre.when they decided to invest a lot of money in the construction of prestigious capital ship like the Bismarck and the tirpitz. The whole plan Z as propose by by the head of the german navy was the wet dream of these people but it never had any sense from a strategic point of view. Once again these people syccomb to a certain idea of power.
@@angeurbain6129 The Panther was designed because a better medium tank was required and it was obvious that the PzIV improvement potential was coming too an end. The Tiger has a different heritage, it was developed as a heavy break through tank when Germany was still good on offensive. That changed by the time the Tiger was in production. It turned out it was a very well designed multi purpose tank doing well in defensive anti tank as well as anti infantry duties. It was just a bit complex and expensive to make.
Very interesting show, but it was superb German communications which allowed better tactics, which was so advantageous to the Germans. As you mentioned German tanks were very poor until 1942 and it was the anti-tank gun that was the real tank killer, the tank just took the credit. The Tiger was a knee-jerk reaction to the situation. Its success was largely German propaganda, but the Panther was a far better prospect, a far superior all-round tank tham Tiger and a lot cheaper to build. After that things got totally crazy with Millions of Richsmarks spent on totally unrealistic designs. But the real tank killer was always the anti-tank gun and Panzerfaust.
Panther was actually much worse design than a Tiger. Tiger was a decent heavy tank, at least Tiger I. They were never supposed to be built in quantity. But Panther was too heavy to be medium tank, and had horrible transmission/suspension.
Nothing propaganda about the circa 10,000 enemy tanks, assault guns and tank destroyers the Tiger took out. The Tiger was more effective and more successful than the Panther in 1943 and early 1944.
It made a bigger impact in Normandy as well, considering it's small numbers (140 or do compared to 650 Panthers).
The Tiger had by far the highest knock out ratio of any tank in WW2.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Tigers did not destroy 10 thousand enemy tanks . 3 thousand at best on all fronts of WW2. Rest is usual German BS .
@@aleksazunjic9672 Tiger and Panther used the same engines but the Panther was rushed and 10 tons over weight from its original design. The final drives in the transmission suffered. But it was considerably cheaper and easier to mass produce. The transmission could have been fixed or replaced, had the effort not been waisted on Tiger II and the other super heavies.
@@billballbuster7186 I don't think Tiger II had anything to do with it. Simply, Germans wanted a medium tank that could not be penetrated by either Soviet, US or British tanks from the front (in 1943). Plus, to be protected from Soviet AT rifles, and 45 mm guns at combat ranges. This lead to weight creep, transmission problems and general unreliability.
Germany's Panzer IVs would still be outmatched by M4A2/3/4 Shermans and T-34/76's.
Plus, no fuel and apparently, you can't manufacture Men in a factory.
Well in the late stage of the war, Germany was mostly defending so the mobility wasnt their problem. And they were also dealing with inexperienced Soviet tank crews in the early days which makes armor and guns are more important than mobility.
When they were experienced, single T-34/85 had no problem wrecking 3 Tiger IIs. Michael Witmann's tank didnt take too long to get ambushed by experienced Brits tank.
STUG 3
stug III is very underrated
STUG LIFE gang. 😏👌
whats better TIGER 2 or YAHHHGTEEGAH?@@Godzi-ki1sz
👍💪
I've said it once and I'll say it again. After the first encounter with the T 34 the Nazis should have backwards engineered their own and upgraded from there.
It baffles me that instead of accepting the slopped armour design they built a massive heavy tank first to counter the T 34 THEN rolled out tanks with slopped armour.
The Tiger 1 was being designed prior to Barbarosa and was not a response to the T34. The Panther was the T34 response. Panthers are a better response than Tigers or Jagtigers.
It is called the Panther, that was the German response to the T -34: just look at the similarities in design, gun and speed. The Germans just upscaled the '34.
During the large tank battles at the eastern front, the Panther and Tiger had a average kill ratio of 18:1. The tank crews reported that the russian shells just bounced of the hull, the only vulnerable part have been the tracks, therfore the russians had the strategy to ram the tanks with their T34 in order to stop them.
germany did not have the fuel resources to support greater numbers of Pz IVs or StuGs. germany had a very difficult time providing fuel for the number of tanks they did have.
Germany could have won WW2 by treating the Jews nice and becoming allies with the USSR!
You don't know the difference between propaganda and reality.
.
Without the Tiger Germany wouldn't have won the War.
Without tigers in the marsian zoos the Jupiter would never attack Venus
They lost!
@@blaircalvin5025 What are u tolking? Read historie books, Germany is ally of America, America won World War III so could Germany had lost?
Beyond fuel issues, the Wehrmacht had too many variants of the same type of combat vehicle. As a former officer in a tank battalion and an armored cavalry regiment, I can imagine the headaches the Wehrmacht maintenance guys had trying to find parts. I’ve read stories from veterans who cited something like a dozen different variants of trucks (many captured from nations the Germans occupied early in the war like French and Czechs).! The Germans were masters at tank design but if they had focused on one type and used their scant resources fielding that one variant of heavy tank, they possibly would have fared better. Regardless, the Wehrmacht had no chance as the allies had far too many resources.
Because of its hasty design Panther tanks also suffered from mechanical issues with many breaking down on the way to the battlefield and having to be abandoned.
No its not a design fault, its the lack of logistic, and to high battle tempo, that do not allow time for maintenance/recovering.
The Tiger put fear in the enemy. As they were in Sherman's seeing a Tiger who is in range must of been an experience
The script writer is missing the lack of Tungsten in the Panther/IS3 comparison. Tungsten cored AP was like gold dust in the Panzer Waffe towards the end of the war.
The Germans realised they had a problem with their anti-tank guns long before attacking Russia. It was the shock of finding that only their 88mm guns could deal with the British Matilda II tank that made them pause their assault towards Dunkirk allowing the British Expeditionary Force to be evacuated.
This is an interesting theme for Germany. It not only suffered from a proliferation of armored vehicles as weapon systems but across ALL military procurement. A good example, is the myriad of examples of common military trucks.......there were too many different models from different manufacturers. This is ALL stems from a simple reality..........Germany and its leaders NEVER planned for a "world war" or even a war on two fronts, let alone four fronts or more. Germany was fighting the 1/ The British Army in North Africa 2/ The Brits and Americans in the air war 3/ the british and Americans in the Atlantic 4/ the USSR in the east . This is simply because there was NO strategic planning for such a "world war" on multiple fronts. Mein Kampf made it very clear that even a war on 2 fronts was unacceptable. The truth is that Germany was setup by the USA, UK and USSR deliberately, because all three blocks were controlled by the "khazarian mafia". Against the vast industrial and manpower of the British empire, the USSR and the USA.....it is a compete miracle that Germany held out from 1939 to 1945.
It is not the machines. It was fuel. If Germany had more tanks, the fuel situation would be even worse.
Never knew the Panther could be better than the two Tiger types, interesting video
This highlights an universal phenomenon. In a lng term war , quantity always matter
How much quicker coukd they make the mk IVs? and how much better maintenance Wise were they than the tigers and Panthers ?
Initially the engine of the Panzer V Panther was a nightmare ^^*
From what I've read, the use of the Tiger's force as a 'fire brigade' was not the original intention. Rather it was a result of pragmatic battlefield reality especially when the situation was turning south for Germany.
The original intention was to use the heavy tanks as a method to concentrate force to push a breakthrough.
In such role they were NOT intended to be used constantly like they were when functioning as 'fire brigade', instead they were intended to be massed on a point on the front line, then strike, punch hard and ideally break a hole in the enemy defense line... so the rest of the more mobile force can pour through.
Once a hole or breach is created in the line, the Tigers then can rest, rearm, and perform the significant maintenance required for them while the more mobile force exploit the breach in the enemy line and wreak havoc on the rear line.
But the reality in the field is that the situations were not great even during the time when Tiger was introduced, and as breaches in Germany's own line show up... they were forced to use their heavy tanks as a response force, thus their use as 'fire brigade' often because there's no sufficient tank in reserve to respond otherwise (Germany never had enough tanks vs their need, which in part prompted their use of captured hostile tanks despite the logistical challenge that cause).
This was not ideal because heavy tanks like Tiger require significant maintenance time, their original use as a breakthrough force (a battering ram essentially) would've given them the time to do this maintenance after a breach is made, but their use as a 'fire brigade' does not allow this as they have to be constantly moved to different point in the lines where they are needed.
One of the biggest flaws with Germany's production was their logistics. They simply did not have the logistical power to keep up with the allied forces. Had they not been limitedby that factor, we would definitely be living in a different world - but had they not bitten off more than they could chew there wouldn't have been a war.
Excellent.
Many thanks!
Panther and jagdpanther were much better bang per buck than heavier vehicles. Still, this decision did not have much effect in the outcome after Stalingrad. After Kursk it was definitely game over.
@5:29
And the 88's very high profile.
Took guts to get on top of them gun for all snipers and all exploding motar rounds to access.
I may have missed it, but Germany used radios and coordinated their tactics with artillery against frankly loose attacks by T34s and KV1s with little combined arms support in the first years. The point about the Panzer Brigades against the West was a case in point, the US used combined arms against tank heavy formations that lacked Infantry, air and artillery support. That was a surprise, I thought the Panther was double the cost of a Pz 4.
Germany's biggest problem was resources. They would have lost sooner if they didn't produce high quality tanks and other equipment. One Wehrmacht POW put it the best. "Once I saw the American's idling their trucks without any worry for fuel. I knew Germany had lost the war". Not the exact words but a good summary. The only way the German's would have had a better chance was to have more resources. Manpower being apart of that.
The "Big Cat" problem only illustrated Germany's real problem: it never went all-in on a possible war-winning strategy, so it was always patching holes instead of being proactive.
A powerful navy doesn't defeat the USSR, Tigers don't defeat the US or Britain, and the Luftwaffe lied to itself about its own abilities to a crippling extent.
The Problem is, at the end you want to cuddle the big Cats as well.
The tiger one was lethal and had a lot of success. The Germans built a ton of panthers and after the panther went into service it was they’re mbt not the panzer lV
The King Tiger was a superior tank. The problem was it was rushed into service and didn’t have time to work out the bugs. You can’t help but be impressed by the German engineering.
Germany needed quality over quantity, as they could never hope to compete with allied production capacity. However, their insistence on over-engineering the capable ones (panther) and production of needless models (Elefant/ King Tigers/ Jagdtigers) wasted valuable resources.
By putting in a simpler transmission, simpler suspension, dropping the interleaved road wheels, and shedding a few tons, the Panther could have been made more reliable.
Good thing they didn't.