Least successful WW2 tank?

1940, the Germans redefine modern warfare by going around the Maginot Line and using their panzers in mass. At this time the Dora gun was still in the Krupp workshops at Essen. September 1941, the first test round for the Dora gun was fired! In 1942 unit 672 was formed and despite the little service that the gun saw due to the massive amounts of resources, and men needed, a second Dora was almost completed by the end of the war.

Yes, the K-5 entered service in 1936, but why did it continue to be produced until 1945?? Oh, lets not forget that only 8 of the 25-28 that were finished were produced before the war!!!!

As for the Karl Morser, all 6 were delivered before 1942. In May of 1942 new 54cm barrels were ordered as a direct order from Hitler!!

2 K-12s were built by 1941? (not 100% sure about that one), but I do know that they saw little or no service, and were on the move most of the time at a huge expenditure of resources and manpower.

Why were these guns continually produced, or in service until the end of the war?? As far as I understand, it was a direct result of Hitler’s fascination with big guns. Apparently Hitler thought they “looked cool”. Perhaps fascination is a better way of explaining it…

leopold, what are you stating here??? That the RR guns were thought to be useful, and hence the production of them was justified? By 1942 I would say that it was quite obvious that there was little place for such monsters on the battlefield and they did little more than drain much needed resources from the places that they were needed most.

Can you not agree with anything I say???

All I am saying is that the design and development of Karl and Dora started long before Hitler became fascinated with mege-weapons and construction began because of the perceived need to field weapons capable of defeating major fortifications. Since the siege of Sevastopol did not start until May 8th, 1942, you can not say there was no further need for these weapons in 1942. The luftwaffe flew some 23,000 sorties to deliver 20,860 tons of bombs on Sevastopol in three weeks. German artillery fired 562,944 rounds on the besieged port. THIS is a huge expenditure of materials! The fact that Dora fired only 48 rounds at seven targets, in one case passing through the water and 100 feet of rock before detonating the main Russian ammunition magizine at Severnaya Bay, should at least qualify as a small degree of success for this weapon. Granted, after this campaign, the need for these huge weapons had passed and no, I do not think that the continued manufacture of these could be justified. And yes, Hilter continued to lust after these large weapons, long after they were no longer needed and he is responsible for their continued manufacture. All I am saying is that these weapons were designed and manufacture started long before Hitler's descent into maddness and not because Hitler thought they were "cool". Just to add some production figures, in 1942, the Germans built 5 RR guns, the US built 50, in 1943, Germany built 4 guns, the US; 130, I don't have German production figures for 1944, but the US built a stagerring 450 RR guns. So, who was wasting resources, the Germans who actually used their guns or the 630 built by the US, which NEVER FIRED A SINGLE SHOT IN COMBAT?

leopold,

I had a rebuttal typed up, but decided that the madness must stop, and have concluded that you simply do not like my choice of the word “cool”. so, till next time… GG

Oh, I will say one thing in relation to a statement you made previously though: aren’t opinions what a forum is for?

Hi all!. To all that have criticised the Elefant, shame!! Ferdinand Porsche thought he had the "Tiger" cantract in the bag, and began production without official permission. This wasn't the case, so the unused hulls were utilised to house the "lang" 88. So the Elefant was born, as a stop gap weapon. With the moulds & cast's in place it was easier to continue producing the Elefant for a short time rather than cancel the project entire. So, Kursk was a disaster, but would archers attack swordsmen with arrows in hand to hand combat? My Dad Is a Kiwi WW2 vet... His comment on The Elefant in Italy "Glad the Yanks had enough Shermans to run the Bosch out of Ammo, We got destroyed from further than we could spot them" If the topic was mainstream tanks, one vote would go to the KV2, unbalanced, top heavy, short ammo supply, high profile, lack of AP rounds for the How., turret couldnt rotate if tank was on an angle, incredible weight on a smallish engine led to overwhelming mechanical problems... Oh well, thats my vote, cheers, Ian

To add to the RR Gun debate, there is something that has obviously been missed. Weapons on any scale are not necessarily designed based on their effectiveness. One of the key elements is Psychological Impact. Just knowing that there was a weapon capable of the devastation the Karl and Dora were capable of had a huge impact on the Allies tactics. Yes, they may fire off only a couple of rounds before hiding again, but the search for the gun by Allied forces effectively diverted men and aircraft from the front lines, searching for a needle in a haystack, so to speak. Just my HO.

demono69

Thanks Leopold and Edog,

Nothing like a good healthy debate. Best part is all the info that came out of it. I benefited from it.


Iano - great 2nd hand first person info!


Bing, bing, next round

QUOTE: Only one Jagdtiger had be lost in action prior to 15 March 1945. This was at Rimling (Alsace) on 9 January 1945, an area that remained in German hands until late February.

Maybe this is the one.

http://www.100thww2.org/support/776combat.html

Just scroll down near the bottom of the page.

M-36 it says? (or a Bazooka???)

that Jagdtiger has had an inturnal explosion, probably set of by its crew becouse of a breakdown or lack of fuel or a typhoon
i dont think it was the bazooka, they couldnt even knock out a T34 in korea

QUOTE: that Jagdtiger has had an inturnal explosion, probably set of by its crew becouse of a breakdown or lack of fuel or a typhoon i dont think it was the bazooka, they couldnt even knock out a T34 in korea

Hi Cap,

Actually according to that site, it was the Germans who reported that it was hit by a Bazooka. I don't believe it either.

The Americans credit the kill to an M-36 "Slugger" or "Jackson" which is more credible. Yes, a Typhoon could have done it. But I'll give it to the M-36.

About the bazooka:

There were two types deployed in Korea, the M9 (2.36") which was also used in WWII and the newer M20 (3.5").

The M9 has already been proven not effective against German heavies in WWII and "yes" also against the T34's in Korea. But the US has to use them until the newer m20's arrive.

The M20's which replaced them are better and has proven very effective against T34's.

Just for info.

Edog: "leopold, what are you stating here??? That the RR guns were thought to be useful, and hence the production of them was justified?" "Can you not agree with anything I say??? "
Leopold: "So, were railroad guns a huge expenditure of men and materials? Sure. Were they a total waste of time? For the US? Sure, we never used them. For the Germans, probably so, they could have spent their effort on things like more aircraft, tanks, subs, etc." " "Railroad guns never were capable of being used in a strictly tactical sense since they were too large and their design was intended for strategic use. They had only a small role in deciding the outcome of any campaigns or battles" "after this campaign,(Sevastopol, May 1942) the need for these huge weapons had passed and no, I do not think that the continued manufacture of these could be justified." Dora's 48 shots at 7 targets is both a testament to how little she was used, certainly NOT justifing her cost of over 10 million Reichmarks, and to how effective her 7.1 to 10 ton shells were at decimating her targets. They didn't run out of shells after 48 rounds, they ran out of targets. If Dora HAD been completed in time for the Battle of France and provided with German air superiority, she would have made short work out of the Belgian forts and the Maginot Line and then gone on to Gibraltar and turned it into a lunar landscape as well. Then, and only then, she MIGHT have paid off her debit. Did I say, quoting you; "That the RR guns were thought to be useful" Yes, that is why WE built over 630 of them, let alone the total number built by the Germans, the French, the English, The Soviets and the Italians. And then: "and hence the production of them was justified?" Reread my above quotes. You seem to think that just because my moniker is "Leopold", that I must be a die-hard, pro-railroad gun fanactic. Sorry, "Probably so" means I'm agreeing with you, Yes, they were a total waste of time, since they were not used for their INTENDED ROLE. Despite the fact that Karl was ready for action by 1939, he was not used (according to my sources)in the Battle of France. Whether this was because of Karl's disappointingly short firing range (which surely would have made him succeptable to counter-battery fire from the French forts, and the reason all the 600mm mortars were rebored to 540mm and the shell weight cut in half in order to double the range in 1942), or due to the change of tactics used by the Panzerwaffe (most probable) I can not say. Regardless, these two weapons, the "Karl" series of mortars and Dora were specifically designed (before the war) with only one purpose, the reduction of heavily armored fortifications, particularly the Maginot Line. Since neither weapon was used for this purpose, their expenditures in manpower, materials and money, were a complete waste. Subsequent use of Karl at the Battle of Warsaw in the fall of 1944 was indeed a mere propaganda stunt, since the use of such a weapon against a unarmored, nonstrategic target like the city of Warsaw served little use other than it's propaganda value. The assertion that Krupp would accept such an enormous undertaking as building the world's largest artillery piece at over 10 million Reichmarks and years of development, simply for the purpose of providing Hitler with a gargantuan toy with which to scare his neighbors and sedate his inferiority complex, is laughable at best. Such folly would require substantial written proof to raise it beyond the level of mere spectulation.

THE M4 SHERMAN TANK. The only reason it did anything cause of all that were made. But everybody spouts off about this fault and that fault but what about the casualties we suffered with this piece of junk. It should have been pulled out of production as soon as the Pershing came off the drawing board!!! I have had the fortune(misfortune )of driving one of these FLAMING COFFINS when i was stationed at FT Knox. Just remember how many lives were lost because of******poor planning.

I agree with bilbirk. The Shermans didn't exactly have the best track record, but when you churn out that many, something's going to get blown up. Some crews just had some lucky shots.

demono69

Okay, don't bash me. If people are are going to knock the Sherman, then you must knock the T-34. Yes, the T-34 was a decent tank....for 1941-1942. After the Panther and Tiger hit the Eastern Front, it was immediately outclassed. The only thing that saved it was sheer numbers, like the Sherman. The Russians just outproduced the Germans-period! The T-34 only upgunned in 1944. The armor more or less stayed the same. The KV I had better armor throughout the war, but the T-34 far outnumbered the KV in production. Yes the Sherman wasn't a great tank, but it could hold its own against Panzer IV's and less, but it was so mass produced, it just totally outnumbered the smaller German heavy tank production. Believe me, I'm not defending either tank, just making a point. Oh, Leopold, please don't chime in with a rebuttal.

Hey, you guy's are doing just fine. Besides, don't worry, I only shoot at fatuousness. Carry on! But just remember: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"- Dr. Carl Sagan
I'll be watching........

Wait till sherm reads this… LOL!! Hey, you have to admit that at least the Sherman tank got the job done. And as far as the T-34, WATCH IT!! This is one of my favorite tanks.

But seriously, I would say that the strongest features of the T34, and the Sherman were the ease of production, and maintenance. The KISS theory worked well in this case. Unfortunately this was not much of a strong point if you were one of the poor guys driving a sherman.

I guess the moral of the story is that every tank of WWII seams to have failed in some sense.

But then again, don’t mind me because I’m apparently fatuous.

QUOTE: Wait till sherm reads this

Even though I don't think it was the worst tank of W.W.II, I fully agree with Edog's statement of the KISS principal being in full use here. Mass production, ease of maintenance, adaptability all came into play. Would I have wanted to be sitting in one of these staring down the barrel of an 88 ..... not a chance.

But remember the much maligned Sherman had quite a post war career with usage in many countries well into the 70's and in a very rare case ... the 90's. Quite a tribute to a vehicle that was quickly designed, quickly produced, and had many changes made to it almost on the fly.

Excellent point, Robert. Those "flaming coffins" carried on for decades after WWII. Must've had something going for them.
Then again, maybe they were just cheap and plentiful!
T-34/85s carried on for a while too, no? North Korea, North Vietnam, some Middle Eastern countries too, I believe.

I've alluded to this before, but here it is again:
Shermans and T-34s won the war for the Allies. Therefore, they were successful designs.
Panthers and Tigers and Elefants (and Leopolds and Doras and Carls and Lokis, etc.) lost the war for the Axis powers. Therefore, they were unsuccessful designs.

That's only from a "big picture" point of view, which obviously the Axis powers didn't have. Of course, the winning and losing is much more complex than that, but it is certainly the bottom line.

I guess I don't know when to shut up. In no way am I knocking the T-34 and I agree with the statements about it. On the flipside, J-Hulk said the Tiger etc. were on the losing side and thus were unsuccessful designs. Well....if they were produced on the scale of the Sherman and T-34, the war would have lasted much, much longer. I doubt anyone would say the Sherman and T-34 were better tanks overall than the Panther or Tiger. True they had their faults: poor engines, heavy weight, etc. Possibly their biggest fault were difficulty in production. Only some 7500 or so were built compared to 40,000 T-34s and 54,000 Shermans and variants, or a 12:1 ratio over the Germans. The Allies also owe a huge thanks to their overwhelming air superiority that no doubt took out a considerable amount of German heavies thus making it easier for the Shermans to march Eastward. Thanks for being easy on me this time Leopold!

Hi, Tigerman! I agree with you 100%.
But how about this: all the wonderful German armor was too big and too complex to produce in the numbers needed to win the war, which must be viewed as a huge design flaw. "Ifs" cannot be considered at this point. They could not be produced in sufficient numbers due to their designs (and lack of raw materials, of course).

I know I'm just being silly, and not really addressing the spirit of the "design" question as it was presented here (that is, I certainly don't believe the Sherman was a technically superior design to the Tiger II), but it's kinda interesting, don't you think?

Quantity seems to beats quality every time!

Hi J-Hulk. This has certainally become quite a topic. Little did I realize how debatable it would get. I got quite a history leason on the Elefant from Leopold. I also learned alot on RR guns. Yes, I see how you were pointing out why the German heavies were considered failures and you are right. This has been the most spirited topic that I have been involved in. This is what is nice about these forums: to discuss problems or topics and at the same time to be educated by others. Needless to say I have learned much on this one!

"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."-R.E.Lee

QUOTE: Originally posted by tigerman The T-34 only upgunned in 1944. The armor more or less stayed the same. The KV I had better armor throughout the war, but the T-34 far outnumbered the KV in production.

The T-34 was a lot faster than the KV I and KV II too. I think there was a KV-85 that was better than the T-34/84, but the IS-2 and IS-3 came out soon after that.

Sphealey the KV85 often has been refered to the IS 1 or JS 1. The IS/JS family is more or less an improved KV.

"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."-R.E.Lee

Great stuff guys, I know I'm seeing alot of good information being presented, but it comes down to the original question...."what in your opinion". Tigermann I hope you don't know when to quit, each question or direction this thread takes opens up a new channel of information for presenting your "solicited" opinion. As has been said, the nice thing about this forum is that we are all adults and can have differences of opinions and no one gets upset. So regardless of how it plays out on paper or in the books it still comes down to your opinion.

My opinion? The Big German stuff was too little, too late. It failed to meet its desired expectation whether by design flaw, lack of material, lack of tactical expertise or application or bad design criteria. Therefore it was a failure. They lost. While it can and has been said that it was misused, it was still unsuccessful because of its misuse. Same can be said for the early Shermans, French, Czech, and Japanese armor that was poorly matched up against superior opponents or more capable and adept crews. I think if you had the ability to ask any ghost of any soldier in those ill fated vehicles he would tell you his particular tank was the least successful.

Although I think almost all the Japanese armor while functional for conquering chinese peasants and under equipped armies and islanders, was ill matched against most allied equipment brought to bear against it. I would have to say that it was the least successful of the lot. (Although the model of the 97 certainly tore me up pretty thoroughly...)

Just my opinion.

Mike

The Russian T-35 was a nice waste of time, and IMO the worst tank of the war (excluding the Mause). It was a huge! Land battleship that had 5 turrets, with guns that were incapable of destroying it's possible rivals at any distance over 300m, and was able to be disabled by tanks originating 10 years before the war even started!

It was slow, loud, huge, and utterly useless! At least the Mause could destroy tanks with it's guns and take punishment from guns larger than 20mm without bursting into flames.

p.s. The Elefant and Ferdinand were 2 different varients, just though that I'd mention that since many of you are referring to the elefant as vunerable to infantry because it lacked a MG (which it didn't).

You are correct Blistex, the Elefant and the Ferdinand are two different variants, the original designation being the Ferdinand, which lacked the hull MG, and the rebuilt Eastern Front survivors, with the added MG and cupola from a Sturmgeschutze III G were renamed by Hitler as Elefants. Many books, including Schiffer's Elefant - Jagdtiger - Sturmtiger, and Squadron's Panzerjager in action, just to name a few, erroneously use the two names interchangeably. For some reason, Elefant seems to be the more popular of the two names and is commonly used to name both variants. I too am guilty of this sin, and deserve to be hung from my heels and beaten with a stick.

Now now, Leopold! Don't be so hard on yourself!
You are undoubtedly one of the most knowledgeable people in these hallowed forums when it comes to the Ferdinand/Elefant.

I know I primarily call it "Elefant" simply because I had built the Italeri kit a zillion years ago, and didn't know it (or it's variation) by anything else. But now I know! This thread has been very enlightening on several topics.
Good work, fellas!

Mike, glad to see someone agrees shares my assessment of the hapless Japanese armor (did you see my post a page or 2 back?). Having seen Type 97s and 95s up close in Saipan last year (and again next week! Whooooeee! Beach & tanks!), I'm fully convinced that I could put my fist right through the glacis if I had too. Those poor crews had it tough.

Perhaps that Chi-ha of yours was exacting a small bit of revenge!

J-Hulk,

Going to the "bansai cliff"? (Oh, did I say it right?). Lucky you!

Ummmm... Guys, dont forget that the T-34 was the father of the Panther... and the birth of modern tanks from there... I would never have thought the T-34 would get a mention on this topic... Boasting a ground pressure of only .8kg/cm (compared to, for example, the Sherman @ 1kg/cm & the Panther @ .88kg/cm) it floated over the terrain, was reliable & and gave birth to an entire combat family. Well sloped armour made it a difficult proposition to knock out. Sure, second generation Armour beat the snot out of it... but what do you expect? Everone learnt from the success the T34 enjoyed and improved on it...
By the way, the KV 85 & Is 1 were different beasts, just looked simular.
Take it easy, Ian

Dwight, yup, second time for Banzai Cliff for me. It's sooo beautiful there, it's hard to imagine the horror that reigned there almost 60 years ago!

Iano, Surprised the T-34 was mentioned here? Heck, I even mentioned Panthers and Tigers, based on their lack of success in winning the war for Germany! The T-34 was a very successful design. They helped win the war!

But I know what ya mean.

LOL.. J Hulk... I read your earlier post about japanese Armour.... maybe we should devote more time to the topic & less to splitting hairs (anyone else listening out there?). Because Italian & Japanese tank designers were obviously thinking about cars & not tanks in WW2.... what do the rest of the team think? (& a Lada is more like a tank than a Ferrari, thats for sure!)
Ian