Sloped armour earlier
- Thread starter drakle
- Start date
The Brits would have to develop the 6pdr sooner, & the 2pdr tank guns would be obvious junk sooner.
German tanks would take fewer losses in SU, which is very bad for the Red Army.
(The Germans in '41 were already performing at about 2.5:1 compared to the Sovs.)
German tanks would take fewer losses in France, which is very bad after D-day...
German would, of course, still lose the war.
Walter Christie would look less like a genius.
German tanks would take fewer losses in SU, which is very bad for the Red Army.
(The Germans in '41 were already performing at about 2.5:1 compared to the Sovs.)German tanks would take fewer losses in France, which is very bad after D-day...
German would, of course, still lose the war.
Walter Christie would look less like a genius.
I doubt it would have been a hugely significant factor. In principle it would mean that the Soviet and Allied tank crews would have to get closer to German armour to penitrate.
However in terms of anti-tank gunnery and mines and other equipment fairly little. Anti-tank guns were often concealed (when prepared) and tended to initiate the combat, they can just allow German armour to roll a bit closer before opening fire. Infantry weapons on the otherhand tended to damage the tracks or fuel tanks etc. (the vunerable bits which armour doesn't protect against).
I don't know the statistics, but I have a feeling that tank-on-tank losses were small in comparison to tanks knocked out by artillery and the infantry.
Sloped Armour on tanks like the T-34 wasn't a success because of its armour. Far from it!
It was a success because it was a Diesel Engined tank, with wide tracks, (very) simple controls and transmission and the fact it was mass producable. But that didn't make it 'the best tank' on the field. It only made it a very effective tank overall when put in the context of the war years. Until that point, one could argue the Panzer II had been the most effective tank overall, but it was a long long long way from some of the other tanks developed in the period.
However in terms of anti-tank gunnery and mines and other equipment fairly little. Anti-tank guns were often concealed (when prepared) and tended to initiate the combat, they can just allow German armour to roll a bit closer before opening fire. Infantry weapons on the otherhand tended to damage the tracks or fuel tanks etc. (the vunerable bits which armour doesn't protect against).
I don't know the statistics, but I have a feeling that tank-on-tank losses were small in comparison to tanks knocked out by artillery and the infantry.
Sloped Armour on tanks like the T-34 wasn't a success because of its armour. Far from it!
It was a success because it was a Diesel Engined tank, with wide tracks, (very) simple controls and transmission and the fact it was mass producable. But that didn't make it 'the best tank' on the field. It only made it a very effective tank overall when put in the context of the war years. Until that point, one could argue the Panzer II had been the most effective tank overall, but it was a long long long way from some of the other tanks developed in the period.
drakle
Banned
One problem about the T-34 was that each factory produced a slightly different version of it so no interchangeable parts.
Also most T-34 were destroyed before they could break down. In some Russian offensives they were big losses to breakdowns.
Also could you find some stats to show where damage primarily hits the tank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_losses_in_World_War_II#Land
This link has tank losses but while searching I couldn't find how they were taken out.
Also most T-34 were destroyed before they could break down. In some Russian offensives they were big losses to breakdowns.
Also could you find some stats to show where damage primarily hits the tank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_losses_in_World_War_II#Land
This link has tank losses but while searching I couldn't find how they were taken out.
Last edited:
The main advantage to sloped armour was in a reduction of weight for the same level of protection. Therefore you either have a requirement for a less powerful engine or you have better speed.
My impression although I may be wrong is that the main disadvantage to sloping armour in the early days is that it can't be as easily up armoured as horizontal and vertical plates (especially field upgrades).
My impression although I may be wrong is that the main disadvantage to sloping armour in the early days is that it can't be as easily up armoured as horizontal and vertical plates (especially field upgrades).
The early t-34's also had reliability issues. One of my favorite photos is an abandoned T-34 with an extra transmission strapped to the back deck "just in case", although I have _no_ idea how any tank crew could even attempt to do this in the field.
Sloped armour is a trick with geometry, and at a cost (internal space, fe). Long story short: modern -western, but rusian ones too - tend to use sloped armour only at the front of the tanks. (And to optimize weight-space-protection ratio, they use extremely sloped or lightly sloped plates).
So, some kind of similar design could be optimal those days too, but i think, that any moves, that get rid of the frontal MG, gave roof periscope to the driver, no frontal drivers hatc, etc would have a much bigger impact on armor protection.
(Like: if they remove the MG and the drivers view from the pZiv, they got an extremely sloped and 10deg monolitical forntal plate 50 or later 80 mm thick. Good luck with that.)
Hoist40
Banned
They would have been better off with an earlier introduction of the long 50mm and 75mm guns. Sloped frontal hull armor might make them a little better armored, it would no effect the turret at all, but the long guns would have allowed them to knock out the enemy at much greater ranges
That chimes with what I can vaguely remember reading, that for all the fanfare about the T-34 it was the anti-tank guns that did the lion's share of knocking out German armour. I'll dig out a couple of the books later and see if I can find a definite statement one way or the other.
Do you have a link to it or know where it might be in a reference as this just amuses me.
amphibulous
Banned
Unless you posit a fundamental change in German manufacturing base, a negative one. Sloped armour has obvious advantages and the Germans were not idiots (except strategically.) They didn't use it because the disadvantages outweighed the advantages - the tanks they were able to build in quantity, the Panzer III, would have been impossibly cramped with sloped armour.
Also: lack of protection for tanks was not a German problem. Their main internal problem was logistics.
Slopes armor had as many disadvantages when it was initially developed as it did advantages. Most importantly it severely restricted crew space and maneuverability. German tanks were superior to Soviet in that respect, and it markedly showed in their performance during the war. While increased frontal armor protection is a good thing, more often than not tank battles on the Eastern Front were decided by maneuver and positioning, not shooting matches. German tanks had 5:1 kill ratios because they could get off multiple shots before the Soviet tankists could find them.
The Germans producing this tank could do it.
But as far as the Panzer III`s and Panzer IV`s are concerned, they were pretty good tanks - perfectly adequate for the German war effort. I don`t even think any of the drawing board panzers often discussed here offer that much of an edge over these two to warrant their replacement. If you want to improve their preformance, I`d suggest having more of them built and finding a POD that allows for all of them to be fitted with better guns (Panzer III with 50mm from the start, Panzer IV with 75mm KwK 40 from the start- thugh the latter is trickier since the Panzer IV wasn`t intended to go up against tanks).
But this is really the crux of the matter concerning German equipment in WWII. The stereotypes are actually right here to a degree - the Germans had good to really good gear, but they didn`t have the industrial capacity, resources, manpower or even a proper war plan needed to inflict a total defeat on the USSR.
But as far as the Panzer III`s and Panzer IV`s are concerned, they were pretty good tanks - perfectly adequate for the German war effort. I don`t even think any of the drawing board panzers often discussed here offer that much of an edge over these two to warrant their replacement. If you want to improve their preformance, I`d suggest having more of them built and finding a POD that allows for all of them to be fitted with better guns (Panzer III with 50mm from the start, Panzer IV with 75mm KwK 40 from the start- thugh the latter is trickier since the Panzer IV wasn`t intended to go up against tanks).
But this is really the crux of the matter concerning German equipment in WWII. The stereotypes are actually right here to a degree - the Germans had good to really good gear, but they didn`t have the industrial capacity, resources, manpower or even a proper war plan needed to inflict a total defeat on the USSR.
Really? What if the Germans had Executor Class Star destroyers? I think the could raze the entire world then repopulate later. Of course this a very big improvement on any tank but still
Tank losses
Theatre (tanks) Mines AT guns Tanks SP guns Bazooka Other Total
NW Europe (1305)22.1% 22.7% 14.5% 24.4% 14.2% 2.1% 100%
Italy (671) 30% 16% 12% 26% 9% 7% 100%
N Africa (1734) 19.5% 40.3% 38.2% nil nil 2% 100%
Mean values 22.3% 29.4% 25.3% 13.5% 6.1% 3% 100%
of which destrd 20.3% 29% 24.4% 12.7% 5.4% - 91.8%
of which dmaged 2% 0.8% 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% - 5.2%
Thats allied losses link to http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/loss.txt but its taken from a 1950 british war office report.
If you can get them 21st army group and 2 TAF Operations research sections did detailed analysis on allied and german tank losses in NW europe which from memory goes into a lot of detail about who what where of kills and explains their methodology
Theatre (tanks) Mines AT guns Tanks SP guns Bazooka Other Total
NW Europe (1305)22.1% 22.7% 14.5% 24.4% 14.2% 2.1% 100%
Italy (671) 30% 16% 12% 26% 9% 7% 100%
N Africa (1734) 19.5% 40.3% 38.2% nil nil 2% 100%
Mean values 22.3% 29.4% 25.3% 13.5% 6.1% 3% 100%
of which destrd 20.3% 29% 24.4% 12.7% 5.4% - 91.8%
of which dmaged 2% 0.8% 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% - 5.2%
Thats allied losses link to http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/loss.txt but its taken from a 1950 british war office report.
If you can get them 21st army group and 2 TAF Operations research sections did detailed analysis on allied and german tank losses in NW europe which from memory goes into a lot of detail about who what where of kills and explains their methodology
amphibulous
Banned
If you can show a way that Germany, as opposed to "The Empire" could produce one of these things, that would be a relevant argument.
amphibulous
Banned
Good data, but misleading unless considered carefully. A tank's primary job is not to fight tanks; it is a manoeuvre weapon. I.e. its job is to get through a whole in the enemy lines (probably made by arty and infantry) and to smash the rear areas and force the enemy to retreat from prepared positions - to force infantry out where artillery can kill it.
My argument was merely that eventually a big enough upgrade an equipment can win a war
But that assumes that Nazi Germany exists in a vacuum, and that it's opponents make no effort to develop new technologies to counter it's developments.