Tank evolution

[Tom Phoenix]

Can someone please describe me the evolution of German and/or Soviet tanks prior and during WWII? What I mean is how early versions were created and how did they affect subsequent designs.

[les Brains]

In the beginning armour was mostly about traversing no man's land of WW1. To stand up to machine nests and navigate pulverised terrain so the infantry could break through heavily fortified lines.

This is why most British armour was deemed "fast enough" if at infantry walking pace. This also explains why a lot of early war armour focused not on tank killing but low velocity high explosive.

And as doctrine resists change, it's why so many Shermans were equipped with a main gun that was best used to support infantry, and lame against German armour in the beginning.

Heavy armoured tanks was a surprise more than once. Only an 88 was able to deal with a Matilda II. Yet the Matilda had a gun that had trouble even with lighter Pz IIIs.

The Russian KV1 was truely a shock in 41, as it was big, had a decent gun and was very well armoured. The Germans were only able to count on superior tank usage and an effective use of radio command in dealing with these beasts.

It's popular to play down Russian science, and is mostly a reflection of the west thinking the Russians couldn't do anything good for too much of the early post war period. I think it was mainly anti commie bias.
But the truth is, the Russians likely has some of the best armour of the war.

The T-34 was easily made, very mobile, well armed, well armoured and it essentially invented the slopped armour concept long enough before the war in the east to make it plain they had thought the design up well before anyone else.

The Panther and Tiger entered the war after all the best tricks had already been done elsewhere already. Heavier tank killing guns, heavier better thought out armour. Wide low ground pressure tracks.
But the Tiger while a dangerous monster, was also damned complicated and a service headache too. Germany probably would have done better to dump the Tiger for more Panthers. A Jagdpanther was probably more efficiently dangerous by the time of the mid-late war years than a Tiger.

The British were largely behind the curve through the entire war. Most of their better tanks were in alot of cases US designs or US based designs. Grant in the desert, Firefly in Europe. The Matilda II while nearly impossible to kill was way to slow to matter during the fall of France.

The American Sherman was more about incredible numbers.

[Geek44]

The T-34 was also a shock to the Germans who at the time of its appearance on the battlefield, were largely still using Panzer II and III.
Some bright spark had the idea of capturing a T-34 which was done anyway. Many T-34s and KV tanks were assimilated into the German inventory but I digress. The idea was to reverse engineer T-34s for German use. The result of this was the Panther. The Panther was complicated and expensive to build. While arguably better than the T-34 of the same period, it couldn't be produced in the same quantities.
I have seen photos of Sherman tanks hit with 88mm rounds in the front plate, with the exit hole in the back! The round has passed through the engine on the way through!!!!

[Pruitt]

The main problem with the Panther versus Tiger is the Tiger was designed first! It was an older design, and did not reflect what was found on the T-34. The Tiger 2 was a more modern design. How does one stop production of weapons that are doing well?

Pruitt

[Tom Phoenix]

Well..you guys kind of missed my point...but anyway, I was able to partially figure some of the things on my own. Here is what I was able to find out till this point:



I`m sure there is a lot missing in there, but that is what I was able to find out till this point. I haven`t been able to find any relevances of the PzKpfw III. and IV. with earlier designs as both were based on specifications by Heinz Guderian. Maus also seems to be a unique project.

[Lance Williams]

Originally Posted by Tom Phoenix

Well..you guys kind of missed my point...but anyway, I was able to partially figure some of the things on my own. Here is what I was able to find out till this point:



I`m sure there is a lot missing in there, but that is what I was able to find out till this point. I haven`t been able to find any relevances of the PzKpfw III. and IV. with earlier designs as both were based on specifications by Heinz Guderian. Maus also seems to be a unique project.

Don't forget that in the early (1939-41) years of the war the former Czech tanks Pz35(t) and Pz37(t) were vital cogs inthe German battle plan and to a lesser extent ex-French armor was also used. Also remember that these chassis and those of PzI, PzII and PzIII continued to be used as turretless tank destroyers with significantly larger guns.

[Carl Schwamberg]

"...as both were based on specifications by Heinz Guderian. Maus also seems to be a unique project."

Thats been my take. I dont know exactly how much Guderian had to do with the specific engineering details of those. From his few accounts I have general specs were written by him & some support staff and contracts were let for prototypes. Guderian does make brief mention of studying many forigen examples, but I'd guess those were all from production models predating 1925 or 1930.

That last implies the German tanks as built between 1933 & 1939 were designed to fight to the standards of the early 1930s.

There werre also a few new designs made between the acceptance of the MkIII & MkIV. Ten or twelve examples of something usually labeled a MkV were fielded in 1939. This had nothing to do with the Panther design, but seems to have been a follow on proposal to the MkIII or MkIV. These were apparently fielded in 1940 & 1941 campaigns in a Lehr unit. Soviet intel reports from 1941 note the destruction of a few of these in a Summer 1941 fight.

There were some even more obscure prototypes built or designs made between 1935 & 1942. One refrence to them I found was a remark that some components of the Tiger I were copied from these designs.

[abc]

Tom Phoenix, I'm glad you clarified it somewhat as I was a little puzzled by the original question. It's a large enough query to fill several books.

You might want to look up the 'VK3001', 'Neubaufahrzeug' & 'Grosstraktor' as oft-neglected missing links in the German Evolutionary chain. They help to explain many of the design concepts adopted in the more mainstream vehicles. There was also much design and usage cooperation with the Russians in the pre-war period so you should be able to find some good crossover links for your 'family trees'.

One of the things that strikes me most about German Armoured 'advances' is how much of it proves to be an evolutionary dead-end in relation to postwar progress. The concepts are advanced and correct (MBT, BFG etc.) but much of the execution seems so flawed to me.
Cheers,
abc

[Pruitt]

The German arms industry also did overseas work when they were prohibited from doing work in Germany. You might want to examine the tank designed in Sweden and any arms developments in Switzerland.

Pruitt

[Lance Williams]

Originally Posted by Tom Phoenix

Can someone please describe me the evolution of German and/or Soviet tanks prior and during WWII? What I mean is how early versions were created and how did they affect subsequent designs.

If you haven't looked already try..........

www.achtungpanzer.com

[pompey john]

Originally Posted by Geek44

I have seen photos of Sherman tanks hit with 88mm rounds in the front plate, with the exit hole in the back! The round has passed through the engine on the way through!!!!

i had the honour to talk to an american veteran who was an engineer. he informed me that he once had to get two shermans towed away. they were both knocked out by the same 88mm shell. it went through 1 sherman and out the otherside and destroyed the sherman to the side of it as well. i bet the tiger commander was well please with that shot. it must have been at close quarters.

[MajorSennef]

Originally Posted by Tom Phoenix

Can someone please describe me the evolution of German and/or Soviet tanks prior and during WWII? What I mean is how early versions were created and how did they affect subsequent designs.

Tom, at the German Panzer museum in Munster they have a clear answer to your question as I can testify myself. In case you're not travelling to northern Germany anytime soon, the museum has a website as well. As some earlier posts suggested you may also check out other ACG threads like the one where I took this quote from.

Originally Posted by captainsennef

While out on manoeuvres with the rest of the Dutch Army on the Lüneburg Heath, I often took 'my' anti-tank platoons to this museum during breaks in weekends. The museum staff was extremely knowledgeable, being old tankers themselves, and could point out strong and weak points of all tanks on display. The museum has a truly impressive range of all tanks which ever were in Germany from WW1 to the present day so IMO a visit was quite useful for instruction. While my soldiers were thus busy, I liked to talk to other visitors, often elder men who had experience with these tanks and could tell the most interesting stories.

The Panzer museum is in the town of Munster (not to be mixed with Münster, where the 1648 Peace was signed) which is located in the Lüneberger-Heath between Hamburg and Hannover . Its address is Hans-Krüger-Str. 33, 29633 Munster. Its website can be found at 'http://www.panzermuseum.com/'

[Pirate-Drakk]

Originally Posted by Tom Phoenix

Well..you guys kind of missed my point...but anyway, I was able to partially figure some of the things on my own. Here is what I was able to find out till this point:



I`m sure there is a lot missing in there, but that is what I was able to find out till this point. I haven`t been able to find any relevances of the PzKpfw III. and IV. with earlier designs as both were based on specifications by Heinz Guderian. Maus also seems to be a unique project.

This picture is not quite right with regards to the Panzer timeline as their development was often in parallel. Early German armor doctrine required recon tanks (Pnz II), tanks to fight other tanks (Pnz III), and anit-infantry tanks (Pnz IV). This is somewhat evident in the fact that the Pnz III/IV had the same torsion bar suspension design. The main difference was simply the number of wheels/rollers due to the difference in size. The Pnz II, had a variety of suspensions, but the Pnz I and earlier tanks had quite primative suspension systems which were not generally used in the war.

If you study the battles for Poland and France this is how the German armored forces used these tanks. In addition, the Pnz I was used for recon due to a need for every possible tank. However, the Pnz I was intended as a training tank, not a weapon of battle. The Czech 35(t) and 38(t) were used in the role of the Panzer II/III during this period as well because they were conveniently available. All chassis of the tanks so far mentioned were used for tank destroyers and/or self propelled artillery as the war progressed and they became obsolete in their original form. Often this upgrade ocurred when a damaged tank was sent to the rear for major repairs.

Conceptually, the Germans battle doctrine did not change during WWII, except that for the tank vs tank role, they went to a combination of "heavy" and "medium" tanks. The Tiger was the "heavy" and the upgunned Panzer IVF2 and later models were the "medium" tanks. Armored recon was done by everything lighter including armored cars, Pnz IIIs, halftracks, etc.

During this period, the Panther and King Tiger tanks were also designed essentially in parallel. Note the similar sloped armor on both tanks and the modified Christie suspension system with the overlapping road wheels that both tanks sport. The King Tiger was to be the "heavy" tank, while the Panther was the "medium" tank to go with it. Self Propelled (SP) guns generally provided the anti-infantry role in the mid to later parts of the war.

I would suggest that the "tank tree" should look something like this:

Early Junk ----- Pnz I
|
Pnz II ---- Pnz III ---- Pnz IV
| | |
Various tank destroyers and SP guns.

Pnz IVF2+ ---- Pnz VIA
|
|
Pnz V ----- Pnz VIB |
| |
Various tank destroyers and SP guns.


Russia followed a somewhat similar plan of tank design and upgrade although they had some freakish "land battleships" (e.g. T-28, T-35) early on, which was a style the Germans avoided. For comparision, the T-34 was the "medium" for tank vs tank, while the KV-1 was the "heavy" tank vs tank machine. The older BT-5,7s and the newer T-40,60s were the fast recon.

Modern armor doctrine still follows the original German model layed out by Guederian and his cohorts.

[Tom Phoenix]

Well my picture isn`t meant to show panzer development by timeline but how specific tanks affected specific designs. Still, thank you for sharing your information.

[jaegertech]

Originally Posted by Aries

And as doctrine resists change, it's why so many Shermans were equipped with a main gun that was best used to support infantry, and lame against German armour in the beginning.

Often said, but still not true. When the Sherman was introduced in North Africa, it was, technologically, more than a match for German armor. The primary tanks facing it were 50L42/50L60 PzIIIs and 75L24 PzIVs. CM shows pretty well what the Sherman could do to Axis armor when first introduced. The PzIII is never really a match for a Sherman, and PzIV long vs Sherman is a game of eggshells vs hammers; whoever gets the first hit, wins. PzIV short fares worse than a PzIII 50L60.

The Sherman only appears deficient against much heavier tanks and that is only an issue because the Americans didn't really field a heavy to counter the Panthers and Tigers.