PzKpfw VI ausf.H ?Tiger? - The history of development

Here - http://forum.wbfree.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9642

 

There is no such thing as PzKpfw VIH.

Tiger I and Königstiger are VIE and VIB respectively.

 

@ dankes

lol, what a waste of server space.

 

illo please wipe ur eyes

PzKpfw IV ausfE



This is definitely not a Tiger!

Tiger and Kingtiger were VI ausf.H and VI ausf.B respectively

 

Ops dankes. VI E (Tiger) and VI B (Königstiger).

So there was also VI H. It was one equipped with full tropical air filter 'Feifel' system and less powerful Maybach 650hp engine. Probaply because prototypes had H and H1 designations. Rest of production were designated VIe. (which were similar to H1)

However usually i've seen them only called as PzKpfw VIE (early,mid or late production).

 

ugum

T-VI in general

 

isnt it funny ? germans conqer entire Europe using shit tanks , after then got superior tanks and lost the war

 

I dont consider german early tanks as shit tanks.

Most allied tanks before 1942 didnt have even radios or commander cupolas. Their tanks were blind and deft. There is much more on tanks than just armor and gun.

Did you know that T-34/76s had to communicate by waving flags? Its quite much easier and safer to command tanks with radio. Early T-34 was novel design, but much of its potential was wasted because of 2 man turret, poor vision and absence of radio. Infantry would just keep T-34 buttoned up and Pz IIIs would use superior communications to outmaneuver them and kill with close flank and rear shots. Without communications teamwork is impossible. Without teamwork surviving is impossible.

Compared to french designs I think even Pz II was superior. Most of above with poor usage made all that armor bit useless.


Just my opinion...

Tank vs tank fighting germans had always the best equipment.
(timeline-> communications, high velocity guns + sights)

Soviets had best SP guns and most of their tanks were great against infantry. There are exceptions like SU-100 which had very good and accurate high velocity AT gun. However fighting against infantry was thought to be more important. (high calibre guns)

US went all for production. Sherman wasnt bad all around tank even later on. But not very good in anything either. (well good in catching fire.)

Brits. hmmm.... soap boxes or modified shermans. 17lb gun was very good AT gun tho.

Overall I think germany and USSR had clear desing objectives while western allies tank design seemed to be somewhat lost.

 

i expected cold reaction of international community, because i translated sherman story, and watched answers. some positive, but the grim silence in generally (a contrary to long cheerful threads in russian forums with these texts) showed me that this text is not for majority of out-soviet folks.

may be it's differences in the menthality, but soviet readers find these texts very funny.

of course these texts are jocular, and we impatiently expect t-34 story from the same author to have another doze of laugh.

 

There was hmmm... hyperbole about shit tanks

Not sure about British tanks in North Afrika.
But I'm sure - russian tanks w/o radio came to the end in late 1941/early 1942.
Anyway radio is not a tank at all, and tank itself is not an armoured troops .

That's completely right.
Gunsights were not that high quality as Germans have.

Most important thing that there was not enough competent commanders from platoon to corps, army level. Tactics, controllability of Soviet armored forces were inferior to German ones until 1944-45. This caused heavy losses.

Careful! Potentially French armored troops were strong enough, but there were proverb "French generals fight against french tanks better than German tanks". The situation with combat use of French armored forces were worst than Soviet one even in 1941.

85mm converted flak was good too on Su-85 and T-34/85.

It needs to say that thanks to the lend-lease program USSR received modern tank sight technologies and special sight glass.

Soviet tankmen in 1945 to their great surprise discoved that IS-2/T-34/SU-100 gunsights became much better than simplified due to full mobilization T-V Panther's ones for example.

 

I don´t remember which Russian general it was. But he said: "Great numbers is "quality" too."

So like in the air, in the land too superior numbers won. Someone in the FH forum says: "War doesn´t determine who is right, but who is left." That about sums it up. I´m not says that the Germans should have won, IMO they never should.

hemuli

 

not difference in mentality, but i seem to never have time!
i remember that p40 pilot interview had to be read in 3 different moments so i could finish :-\

 

illo i have to say you wrong

1. T34 competely outmatched german tanks armed in 37, 45, 50, and even 75mm guns (pzkpfw IV early versions), remember T34 has 45mm hull armor, front, left, right, rear , only angles was not similar. Also i'm not technician expert, only what i know is russians cant fight well, poor trainig , shit command , poor aim devices, bad tactics. Russian tanks if had radio then it mean every type of tank has different radio model (light-medium-small) .
Strong T34 sides was : armor, diesel engine, christie-whell, wide tracks, speed in wet or shit terrain (much better than every german tank), weapon.
BTW: in 17th sept 1939 red invsion of Poland - russians capture few polish 7TP tanks, then they got polish unique scope technology (tanks can easy see in front or behind), then mount it in t34.
2. Polish campaign - shit tanks - mostly pzkpfw I (armed only 2 mg's) , however Poles had shit tanks too (except 120x7TP and 49xR-35 battalion)
3. French camaign - still shit tanks - mostly pzkpfw II, can be easily destroyed by R-35, samoa and char B french tanks. In compare to allied tanks - theres nothing special, germans had faster tanks with longer range. French crap has heavy armored slow tanks. Char B was unbreakable to every type of german tank.
4. Jugoslavia and Greece campaigns - lets say there was no opposing tanks
5. Early russian campaign - still shit tanks, ok ok most types was chech rep Pz35t , Pz38t , german pzkpfw III & IV , but still pzkpfw II & I was numerous. This tanks was not bad compared to other countries in the world... except Russia Russians T-34 and KV heavy tanks was total surprise for fascists . So germans totally waste Russian East armies quickly , reinforcements have benn crushed one by one, germans reach Leningrad, Moscow, Charkov, and Wolga river... Ok ok i know russian newest medium and heavy tanks was still little numerous at all , but remember in 22 june 1941 axis forces had some 4000 tanks , Red Army had at least 20000 LOL.

Now history says hmm... we all think about "superior german tanks". True is they were crap tanks, but very good command, good tactics, perfect air cooperation and THE MOST IMPORTANT THING : brave and training german crews.

 

Really? Germans proove many times : numerous advantage means nothing I mean French campaign and Russian campaign.
Many so many battles germans have won using just good tactics. Russian front was a little circus. Germans attacked russian outnumbered forces usually, and beat them easily
IMO Germans of course never should have won, i agree, i have to add : they never had a chance to win against Russia & USA.
IMO they have little chances to beat only russians, but there was too many of them

BTW: i read some stories about russian command One is : in 1941 pilot of recon plane discovered german long panzer column heading some 300km to Moscow. Russian HQ staff called him "panicked" and send 2 another pilots one by one ... Both pilots confirm german panzer column. Russian HQ staff decided to kill those 3 pilots for "panicking". They died, and germans almost go through Moscow

 

Nice info...that clears up something ive wondered. IS-2 performance versus german big cats increaced dramatically late in the war.

 

Yes they became able to hit big cats at 2000-2500m distance too.
Other factor is that armor quality came down. The discussions about is it worth to re-arm IS-2 with 100mm AT gun or little-known 107mm gun stopped at the end of 1944 as IS-2 became able to pierce Panther's hull/turret front armor w/o any AP round improvements.

 

Biggest problem of Germans in the war? having Hitler commanding, he had some really ridiculous ideas (just talking about military tactics and such, of course not politics, that's another thing), I've read somewhere that he wanted to use 262 as "light bombers", and Luftwaffe had hard times convincing him that it was supposed to be a fighter, and that they needed more fighters than bombers, just an example.

Biggest problem of Russians in the war? having Stalin commanding, he killed more russian officers than the germans, sure, another mad man.

Biggest problem of the french? having those generals of theirs.....

.....etc

Conclusion? kill all them generals, no more stupid wars

 

Communications are most important in organizing large scale tank actions when in middle of combat. Troops you cant command are basically useless.

If you look history its not best armor, best guns, best assault rifles etc. who won. Its best command. Command is also about equipment, not only about skills.

Most history writers dont understand this. However it comes quite clear when reading about 41 engagements. Soviet tanks were separated from eachother and infantry. It was fairly easy because they couldnt react to situations fast enough.

But this is just what i think about importance. I guess its much matter of opinion. Id more like to be armed with molotov cocktail and be able to command assault than doing assault with 88L71 Kwk gun and without being able to command.

Even good commander in early t-34 would have been almost useless.

I would say that early T-34 was just a great paper tank.

True pz I was light scout tank. Actually designed to train troops. So it wasnt used in tank vs tank engagements naturally. Neither were later PSWs and Lüchses. Pz I was quite succesful used in its role.

German tanks had again better commnications and were easily able to outmaneuver and avoid direct contact with french tanks. What do you do with armor and gun if you never get change to use them? If german tanks wouldnt have radios and speed i would agree with you. However that wast the case.

How about non facist german soldiers?

T-34 archieved much more on next winter when it was used with better command and grouped up.

In early 1941 T-34s and KV-1 were usually just overrun after infantry stumbled on them. Ofcourse they many times sat in behind of german lines just waiting for 88 or 105mm howitzer being transported to finish it. However I dont think sign of good tank is that it isnt able to find its way to friendly forces. I wouldnt be suprised if relative losses to T-34 and KV-1 were much bigger in early 1941 than that of Panzers.

Soviet army was spread out no suprise concentrated forces could outfight them.

Command is about tanks too. You cant command effectively without right tools.
Also I dont think russian crews were any less brave quite the opposite.

 

Usually germans had overwhelming local superiority in numbers. But yes thats because of good tactics. They fought with well concentrated forces.

Its suicide to attack numerically even equal forces if they are in prepared positions with flanks protected. Poor training or not.

Here goes my theory:
All about stupid game called war is to attack in weak points of enemy (supply etc.) with your strongest forces. Best skill of all is winning without fighting at all. Just good maneuver which forces opponent to give up. Checkmate. Paralyze opponent, cut communications and move on keeping your own lifeline(supply,comms) protected. If opponent is still willing to fight they have to do it without food, fuel and ammunition.

 

Perhaps you mean: "Quantity is a quality of it's own"... well it goes more or less like that...

greetze, Zembla