soc.history.war.world-war-ii

On Feb 5, 5:48 am, "lesliemills2...@netscape.net"
wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2:39 am, "Mike Piacente" wrote:
>
> > I was always amazed that the Germans, while fighting a war on several fronts
> > (and then losing all of them), would spend massive amounts of money,
> > resources, and time (all of which they didn't have) on stupid projects --
> > super-heavy tanks, guns that could shoot around corners,
>
> Some factors to consider:
>
> - Political ideology. Nazi Germany tended to favor small shops for
> final production, with larger industries producing parts on demand for
> each shop. Consequently, they had a standardization problem,
> hindering mass production. It took time to realize and address the
> problem, and by then they were already bogged down in the USSR, and
> had declared war against the US.

Surely, that reflects not on Nazi ideology but on the state of German
manufacturing that came out of
pre war economic realities that the Nazi government had to work
with.

If one compares mass manufacturing in Germany to that in the USA the
Germans look backward; but then so does every other nation. Apart
from items that need to be produced in big factories such as iron and
large forgings the tendency would be towards smaller shops. (Something
that would have helped dispersal in the end). German exporters
today tend to be specialists that dominate niche markets which was
probably true then as it is now.


>
> Panthers were being destroyed faster than they could be replaced. A
> stronger tank may have been able to last longer and inflict more
> damage, thus being a net gain.


The tendency throughout the war was towards heavier tanks. Today
modern MBT weights somewhere between 65 and 70 tons since the
development of composit armour capable of resisting the heaviest
weapons makes it worthwhile to push tanks weight to the limit. In the
1960s it was about 55 tons since no amount of practical armor could
resist a good hit from a tungsten core round and survival could be
best improved with agility and accuracte fire control. This is the
weight range the Tigers I and II operated in. The problem seems to
have been not so much the weight (an issues with bridge and river
crossings) but in tank width which exceeded that of many railway
lines. Late model panthers were intended to be equiped with the
'schmalturm' tiger II like turret, gyros stabalised and equiped with a
range finder and a weight of 52 tons was pretty much on what the
western post war tanks settled on eg Uprated Centurion, M60, Leopard
I, Chieftan etc reaimin for decades.

However in evaluation the E100 (90T) and the Maus (180T) one must
remember that the limits to practical tank size had not been
established and indeed all sides toyed with the idea. The US had 90T
tanks and actually got 3 in service.

In understanding these tanks one must start from the assumption that
the Germans or Nazis driving these decision were not totally
delusional.

A 180 ton tank would no doubt dominate a 45 or 60 ton tank, However
would such a tank be better than 3-4 tanks using the same amount of
steel? I would think so, in certain situations at least, since the
Armour could be thick enough to be impune to any gun a smaller tanks
could carry. So long as it was applied properly, ie with protection
by ordinary tanks in the flanks and the rear and not to much demanded
of it i.e. it must be. This is pretty much how the Germans operated
their tanks anyway.

The advantages of a 180 ton tanks are that it leapfrogs the
anticipated allied 90 ton tanks.

How would such a tanks be transported? I would assume that the 180
ton tank could be broken into 3 or 4 and that it would be transported
by 3 flat bed railway carts, lorries with a crane for a relatively
rapid reassembly. If it is thought of as a system it makes a bit
more sense.

As for river crossings; specialist vehicles provide one answer but it
appears that the Germans intended to just drive the tanks through the
river bed while powering the tanks with a snorkel or by transferring
electric power to it via electric cables.

I haven't actually seen any attempts by anyone to understand how these
massive tanks were meant to be used tactically.