Tanks - Strategic or Tactical value most important?

[Arthwys]

Originally Posted by Guaporense

The Pz IV was more than enough to fight the war. The new tanks were a waste of money. Also, note that German tanks traded with the Soviets about 3-4 to 1 during the war.

Also, I think that German armour had better quality than Soviet armour on average, that's because of German tradition of high quality ferrous materials industry.

Even if the Pz IV's had been 'enough to fight the war' There was still the issue of combat trade-offs in attrition.

Had the Germans stuck only to mediums and not entered the Heavy tank realm they still couldn't have outproduced the allies. Between the American and Russian production levels the Germans were being avalanched by numbers.


Edit: sweet! got my 2000th post!

[Nick the Noodle]

Originally Posted by Arthwys

Even if the Pz IV's had been 'enough to fight the war' There was still the issue of combat trade-offs in attrition.

Had the Germans stuck only to mediums and not entered the Heavy tank realm they still couldn't have outproduced the allies. Between the American and Russian production levels the Germans were being avalanched by numbers.


Edit: sweet! got my 2000th post!

and .

[Legate]

Originally Posted by Nick the Noodle

A bit off subject here, but when the 6th Guards Tank Brigade were using their captured Panther Cuckoo, it was not the gun, armour etc etc that impressed the British tankers, but the optics.



I recently watched a program on WW1 snipers, and while I tend to take history programs with a pinch of salt, it was mentioned that the German snipers were especially dangerous partly due to their superior optics.

I came across this on the net re Zeiss sights. Looks okay to the untrained eye.

http://www.75thguards.com/ww2online/...ight_Guide.pdf

Only really mention this as a relative (coast guard - harbour master) had a pair of Zeiss binoculars that belonged to a U-boat commander, or so he said.

Which is why Zeiss is one of the best optics companies in the world if not the best.

[D1J1]

I voted strategic, but based on the discussion to this point, it seems the survey question itself is poorly worded.

Perhaps a more direct question like, "Which would you prefer, 2X mediums or 1X heavies?" would have been more in line with the way Nick was trying to shape the discussion. That would put it more into the "What If" portion of the forum.

If we are looking at strategic versus tactical I think the question of doctrine is paramount and cannot be separated from the discussion.

Regards,
Dennis

[Nick the Noodle]

Originally Posted by D1J1

If we are looking at strategic versus tactical I think the question of doctrine is paramount and cannot be separated from the discussion.

Regards,
Dennis

You are quite right about doctrine and the way a side intends to fight a campaign. It has been noted that I rate the Churchill tank. Imo it is the best tank on the W Ally side, but it would be way off my first choice for the Eastern Front.

However, I was trying to be more general with say a Matilda vs a 38t for example.





I've chosen those two because I rate both .

[tx34]

I certainly don't know enough about any specific tank to answer the question in that form, however in terms of strict quantity vs. quality given equal resources quantity will win. You need to keep in mind the fact that in terms of resources vs. quality the relationship is not proportional and is in fact exponential. This is of course a bit of an oversimplification but I thought I would give my two cents. It would be interesting to see the costs/hours/material needed for the production of some of the tanks being compared.

[Arthwys]

Originally Posted by tx34

I certainly don't know enough about any specific tank to answer the question in that form, however in terms of strict quantity vs. quality given equal resources quantity will win. You need to keep in mind the fact that in terms of resources vs. quality the relationship is not proportional and is in fact exponential. This is of course a bit of an oversimplification but I thought I would give my two cents. It would be interesting to see the costs/hours/material needed for the production of some of the tanks being compared.

Welcome to ACG, Nice first post.

[IronDuke]

Originally Posted by The Purist

Well, France was defeated by military action not by the mere presence of German tanks but that is another discussion.

A Pz VI (and arguably Pz V) made a poor strategic weapon and even as a tactical weapons system was fatally flawed. That is why it is considered a 'failed tactical weapons system'. The tactical advantage of the big German tanks could not always be counted on and they could rarely translate tactical victory into operational, much less strategic, success.

T-34 and Sherman, on the other hand, were both tactically successful when married to proper doctrine and successful strategic weapons. The German Pz III/IV were the only comparable German systems but were flawed at the strategic level by lack of numbers.

Highlight mine.

I suppose my response would be that by the time these weapons appeared in numbers (say summer of 43) Germany's strategic requirements had changed from the heady days of 1940.

Strategic success by that point was (in many people's eyes) a stalemate brought about by extracting unsustainable losses on Russian forces through aggressive operationally defensive battles.

To my mind, the Tiger and Panther were ideally suited to this strategic aim. You're right to say there weren't enough of them, but then Germany didn't have enough of anything, and wouldn't have had enough PZ IVs had she built them exclusively either.

Regards,
ID

[The Purist]

Originally Posted by IronDuke

...Strategic success by that point was (in many people's eyes) a stalemate brought about by extracting unsustainable losses on Russian forces through aggressive operationally defensive battles....

But Tiger was not capable of this strategic success under any of the known circumstances. Complexity of design, fuel consumption, maintenance and reliability all conspired to weaken its tactical abilities (powerful as they were). Lack of numbers and logistical constraints prevented it from being a success beyond tactical applications.

While more Pz IVs were not the answer (for all the known reasons) neither was Tiger.

[Panther3485]

Originally Posted by The Purist

"... Lack of numbers and logistical constraints prevented it from being a success beyond tactical applications.

While more Pz IVs were not the answer (for all the known reasons) neither was Tiger."

IMO, lack of numbers would be the key here. The Tiger was only ever intended to be built in small numbers, as a premium heavy breakthrough tank to be used at specific points. This intent was reflected in its cost, which was a case of 'no expense spared'.

Although it often proved itself brilliant in a more defensive role, it was simply too expensive and demanding on resources to be built in the numbers required for a truly strategic tool.