Unless the Germans built a tank that could magically produce vast amounts of fuel and solve their manpower shortages, there is no tank that would have really made a big difference. The Germans adopted the best tanks they could in light of the situation that faced them at the time.
Lame.... I mean what a boring no shit response to this video. Clearly the obvious points, a country the size of Wisconsin taking on the world? For what they had they did rather well with it. No country was going to win against those odds. With what they had they did more so than most countries, clearly were respected and feared.
An interesting side note is that this LEOPARD turret was the first iteration of the "Schmalturm" turret [narrowed to reduce chances of frontal hits and greatly increase armor through sloped turret ] . That was achieved by designing the side turret to double as the front armor at extreme side angle. So from the frontal POV - the 30mm side turret ARMOR was FRONT TURRET at compounded angle of 63o resulting in LOS armor of 66mm, from front. That represented ½ front turret profile leaving 30mm @ 20o for the other ½ of the front turret profile.. However the KwK-39 main gun 50L60 , had large ‘state of the art’ "Saukopfblende” mantle dominating the front turret. This was about 30mm cast armor @ 65o COMPOUNDED ANGLE OR same protection as the rest of the SIDE/FRONT turret. ...meaning the about 66mm protection covers at least ¾ of the LEOPARD front turret profile. Furthermore since this LEOPARD chassis is already the size of StuGIII , then the LEOPARD should be able to replace StuG-III production , and could become the Defacto StuG, complete with sloped front & side armor plus 75L48 gun. This same turret design was used in 1943 to put a 50L60 gun in Schmalturm turret on the very large 11-12 ton armoured car [SdKfz 234]. Front armor was 30mm on turret and chassis with10mm side armor @ 25o [compounded angle 63o] …. LOS was around ~ 34mm front turret. It also looks like it was the final turret designed for the Panther F in 1945 [few turrets completed before VE day, but none deployed] . This featured the 75L70 KwK-42 gun mounted on 7.6 ton turret with 120mm front armor @ 20o plus the 150mm “pot” mantle and side turret armor of 60mm @ 25o. Needless to say the compounded side turret angle was 63o from front ; resulting in about 132mm LOS thickness through about ¾ frontal profile. For completeness that Panther Schmalturm was to get a stabilized sight and design adapted to mount 88L71 gun with possibly some built by end of 1945 after > 1000 Panther F...Completed.
Have you ever considered that the reason that these things were not produced was that the German Army knew that they had flaws that made them inferior to their other designs? Have you also considered that the German Army did just fine in its invasion of Europe at the beginning of the war? As far as lacking tank production later in the war, it was not a problem of design, but industrial capacity to actually produce sufficient numbers of the designs that they had in production.
nope. just because the germans used a design doesn't mean its the best. -firstly we have hindsight, they didn't. we know the kind of war they actually will fight and the problems they will run into.while they might have thought the design they used was better for what they imagined they needed doesn't mean it was better for what they actually needed. -secondly, we don't have political issues interfering with designs. -3rdly the german army didn't do just fine, it had a large number of issues they themselves recognized and tried to fix as the war went on, just because they won the campaigns doesn't mean they did fine. we with hindsight can point to designs that would have reduced or eliminated those issues. -4thly the issue was not actually the number produced later in the war but oil and reliability. they produced more tanks then they could actually run. issues they wouldn't have if they had better designs in the beginning of the war (the former as they could have helped capture oil of they were sufficiently good enough, and the later because a design more able to be upgraded would have reduced reliability issues) for example in the video he mentions the leichtraktor. the germans originally chose the panzer Is and IIs over it because they decided 37mm guns were overkill, an assumption they realized was incorrect leading to panzer III and IV, if they had simply built the Leichtraktors (or variants of it) they would have done mutch better in Poland (as said in the video they germans lost some 500 pz is & iis in poland as a result of said vehicle's under armed status), france and the USSR.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 not entirely true new designs would have slowed production down and made reliability even worse due to the inefficient production lines the Nazis had Keeping designs to the minimums they did was even a problem tho because they still had variations in production lack of spare parts and reliability problems. Adding more vehicles to that would only make it worse Another thing is that the Nazis would have run out of oil in the same amount of time no matter what because you are only thinking of the tank armored units themselves not the entire war as a whole, you have infantry support vehicles (half tracks) trucks for supply lines, the luftwaffe and all the planes they had from 1939-1943 and the kriegsmarine with all of its u-boats, also even tho civilian vehicle transportation was highly limited during the war as the nazi party put high restrictions on fuel consumption to save fuel for the war effort there were still some vehicles driving around like busses. Another problem was not just reliability and lack of oil for armored units at the end of the war but man power they didn’t have enough people to run there armored units. I will agree on something tho the pz1 and pz2 were very ineffective even though they made up the bulk of the armor the Nazis had at the time, they were simply just targets while units like the pz3 would do the cleanup.
Well, war is simply wrong. But the Germans failed to follow the advice of Sun Tzu and Carl von Clausewitz as to war. Oh, and the Germans failed in the areas of demographics, logistics, geography and communications, especially in the latter. Insecure communications were for sure the kiss of death and they simply didn't have the quality replacement troops and attrition finally did them in.
i never said these tanks were meant to replace all existing german tanks. The Krupp Liechtraktor would replace only the Pz I and Pz II, The other tanks i mentioned would only complement existing tanks and vehicles in places like north Africa or be sold as export vehicles to Germany's Axis Allies. This is all just what-if at the end of the day.
Adding more types of tanks would _not_ have resulted in a greater number of operative tanks. Germany was producing as many tanks as was possible given available resources, available skilled labour, and the gradual loss of capacity due to strategic bombing. If, say, the tank divisions in France got more light tanks, they would also have fewer medium and heavy tanks. As light tanks were lambs to the slaughter considering all the kinds of anti-tank weaponry available in 1944, building more of these types of tanks would have made the Germans less able to defend themselves, not more. In every theatre except possibly Italy, supply was even more of a limiting factor for operations than it usually is. In North Africa where lack of usable ports meant that Rommel's Panzer-Armee Afrika had to be supplied by trucks driving a distance equivalent to Berlin-Moscow and then back again; or on the eastern front where railroads had to be re-laid to German gauge to be useful, meaning that units were usually on impossible distances from railheads; or in France from 1944 when supply columns were frequently wiped out by ground-attack aircraft, in all these places supplies had to be calculated and packed very carefully so as to not waste transport capacity. If you add new types of vehicles that need to be supplied with oddball calibres like 4.5cm or parts for gearboxes and engines not found anywhere else, the quartermasters are going to be breaking your windows at night. Also, some of the types mentioned here _were_ produced an a more developed form.
The "could have been build" was something the Germans were very much aware of. In fact they had numerous "could have" projects all the time that had to be cancelled. Production time and resources were very much the limiting factor NOT the availibility of the "could have" projects. Even at the end of the war when everything was lost and Germany was already in ruins there were still some new projects being started.
Germany never went from bespoke tank production to mass production of tanks. This ment all tanks were individually fitted and spares were not interchangeable
Germany wasted too much time on different weapon designs, they never had a clear plan and once they failed to take Moscow it was all over but the crying. Leopards vs Pzkw I & II’s would have been an major upgrade but German Arrogance in thinking they had the War wrapped up ruined their planning and they got spanked for it.
I'm pretty sure when going through archives of all major WW2 opponents, all had a similar amount of "could have been" designs which weren't adopted for various reasons. That's not a German thing, it's just people seem to be more interested in German designs, possibly because they lost and possibly for their engineering reputation. Certainly towards the end of the war Germany became more and more desperate, naturally. Also the Allies could be much more relaxed with development avoiding to field in mature designs.
Leichttraktor was never planned to be a service tank, the reason it was given the name leichttraktor (light tractor), was because Germany was forbidden from developing tanks in the Versaille treaty. So to hide their tank program, they called it a tractor to hide the build from the Allies; similarly, that is how the name 'Tank' was created in WWI, tank like water tank was used so if code was broken and they ready "tank is being transported', that they wouldn't think of a weapon of war. The leichttraktor was specifically build as a training tank for both the men but especially for the manufacturing industry, to learn and develop proper manufacturing processes. The Panzer I was a drastic improvement over the leichttraktor.
Germany should've had concentrated on building Panzer IVs with long barrel high velocity guns and Panthers and not waste resources on Tigers and other heavy and super heavy tank developement.
Germany was literally scraping the barrel with crews and petrol and you want them to make MORE tanks than they had historically? Germany needed methods to produce and protect their oil, and more reliable and powerful tanks. Hence the E-Series studies.
@@ThatZenoGuy Panzer IVs with long barrel high velocity guns were effective enough to take on the Soviet T-34s and Panthers were powerful enough to take care of pretty much everything bigger that the Soviets and Allies had. Panzer IV and Panthers consumed less fuel than Tigers, were more mobile and had better operational range.
@@hendriktonisson2915 Panther had the same engine as the Tiger, it consumed about as much gasoline due to this. The Panther was an inefficient design that could've been cut down a little, while enhanced in others. Panzer 4 was way outdated once America joined the war, StuG's were far more effective in the defensive war Germany found itself in. Tiger's had thick side armor which made them far harder to deal with, a surprising amount of shots in WW2 came from the sides rather than the front.
@@ThatZenoGuy I don't agree about the Panzer IV. It was not in any way obsolete. It was effective enough to deal with T-34s and Shermans especially the later model Panzer IVs with upgraded armour.
I agree with ZenoGuy. Building more tanks Woudn't really help them much since they were basically scraping for everysingle barrel of oil and building more tank woudn't have really help much if those said tank weren't properly fuel up combine with Allies Bomber bombing their industry 24/7
Lol you really made me laugh. I was mid gulp drinking my tea and i spat some over my shirt as i read it. Lol thanks for that!! 😂 (this youtuber is great! He gets things so mixed up THATS the best thing about them)
As these events occurred circa 80 years ago and that this video is now just for interest’s sake, your comment is now not only ‘somewhat irrelevant’ but also needlessly spiteful. I hope my comment on your comment demonstrates to you, for future reference, how unpleasant it is to have something you’ve done described as “irrelevant” and that in future, if you feel that you can’t be “benevolent” about someone’s work that you will at least be quiet rather than needlessly unpleasant.
firstly did you watch the video? he explains on the very first tank that it was better for what they ended up facing then what they built historically (leichtraktor & ZugFuhrerwagen > panzer I & II), infact the Zugfuhrerwagen is better than the orginal panzer III & IV designs. ->aditionally lighter designs could be built in larger numbers in the same time period and resources. one of the early prototypes of the leopard light tank for example was estimated as being able to produce 2-3 for every panzer 4. it has superior mobility and armour, and there were plans it give it equal firepower, but even the 5cm armed one would be good enough against the western allies in 1944 (if not 45), ->while the vehicle labeled 'Pz II M' in the video could be built 3-5 for every pz III (the eqivilient vehicle of the time, 1940-41). the german army really liked the vehicle, it was canceled due to Hitler. secondly, you seem to be ignorant to the fact germany didn't adopt a full war economy until midway through the war. if they had adopted it earlier they could have built more earlier. hell the germans went through periods in 1939 and 1940 where they stoped building tanks (rather than stockpileing more)
@@matthiuskoenig3378 The biggest issues facing the Heer during the war was lack of fuel and personnel. Adopting swarms of okay-ish tanks would have done nothing but compound these issues. The best thing for the Germans to have done was to build relatively few of the best tanks they could, as it was a more efficient use of resources. Its better to build 15 Panthers that you can crew and reasonably fuel than build 50 PzII M, of which 25 can be crewed, and have even bigger fuel issues.
@@stikfigz Your understanding of German fuel economy during the war is frightenly ignorant. German fuel consumption was 10 million tons in 1940 and 12 million tons by 1944. Meanwhile German motor-vehicle inventory reduces from ~2.8 million in 1940 to 1.5 million motor-vehicles in 1944. I regret to inform you that mechanized vehicles don't make enough of a difference. Wehrmacht fuel consumption was 200,000 tons per month from 41-44, but peaked in the summer of 1941 to 400,000 tons per month. After that its a steady rise in fuel consumption from 200,000 tons per month in early 1942 and a steady increases to 300,000 tons per month mid 1942 and through mid 1943, when military consumption -levels off at 400,000 tons per month until late 1944, when allied bombing campaign cripples the entire economy.
The only thing the German could have done is mounting remote controlled Panzerschrecks on light tanks similar to the American Jeep-Mounted Quad Bazooka. Hence, light tanks can fight against heavier tanks while being a mobile pillbox for infantry support.
Would not work. Especially on the eastern front the russians enjoyed advanced artillery support which they used before major attacks. Up until they are hidden and using suprise they could knock out some tanks. but without it they would be esposed to the elements and could not be used offensivelly.
I have to say i like your thinking. Now if we just create this for a board game or computer game it would be great! As for it hapoening in ww2 i doubt Germany was ever in any position to turn things around with any new tank adaption. They were simply overwhelmed by too many adversaries on too many fronts. I could imagine the Germans were smart enough to produce a top mounted remote anti tank missile system much like the ones that appeared in tge 1960s etc but i doubt they could have produced enough in time. Its easy to take our later successful ideas in warfare and retrofit them to the past and say that would have worked. Hindsight is 20 20 and all that. Problem is no one did think of it back in the past, thats WHY the new ideas are so good. In a way we could take this further and say if germany launched weapon carrying satellites on the V weapons and bombed from orbit they could have won this or that. Ok thats a bit exaggerated compared to putting remote panzerfausts on tanks but you see my point? They didnt do it because of a thousand reasons. Mainly because several huge countries were bombing the crap out of them and rolling tanks into them. Actually they did make a tank with several panzerschreks on top but they werent remotely fired, more like a mini ammunition carrier but its not far off what youre talking about.... Called the "bedbug" en.topwar.ru/94528-protivotankovaya-samohodnaya-artilleriyskaya-ustanovka-wanze-germaniya.html
Steel, factories production priorities, fuel, and transport all contributed to the German tank choices. Mostly they managed to use what they had effectively till the allies learned to fight effectively.
The TOY FACTORY was built to mass produce Panzer IV from 1940/41 on...but in the first few years they only managed to build a handful of Pz-IV. By the end of 41 they were backlog of orders about 228, but instead only 4 tanks were completed. Meanwhile 6 VK 3001 were ordered in 1941which was the same industry to build 39 more Pz-IV, meanwhile preparations were also made to build 100 VK-1302 [3.5 ton munition schepper], although only 28 were built. Constant having to retool the factory for new model that get constantly cancelled.... costing months to retool for the next model , but producing nothing. In 1942 the pattern continued with 100 VK-4501P ordered @ 4 million RM each, only to be cancelled . That would be about 2400 Pz-IV worth of industry in 1942. The 90 Elephant hulls left 265 Pz-IV industry. Historically 1000 Pz-IV tanks were produced in 1942, suggesting the balance [~740] was from the other factory's .
One thing the 37mm was found to be pretty ineffective against French armor and I feel like it would have been even worse against Soviet armor, also the lichtraktor was not even designed for combat it was specifically made for training and that’s it. In many videos I watch of yours, you seem to simply forget that the nazis had already stretched there forces way to think across Europe and there oil reserves we basically gone. Tanks are not a deciding factor of war it’s in maneuvering of all troops and a major deciding factor of how well your armored units will do is your air force which the luftwaffe was non existent in 43-45 leaving all armored units vulnerable to bombings
You miss the point completely here. Germany was never able to fully meet its own needs for tanks so talking about diverting production to export to its allies is a non starter. By the time of DDay they were on the defensive on every front so a light tank was much less interesting than a tank destroyer like the hetzer. You are completely off track.
The film footage was very good, but why you think producing a whole bunch of obsolete tanks would’ve helped Nazi Germany win WWII is just bizarre. It was the Nazis wasting their resources trying to produce a myriad of different tanks that caused them come up short. If they’d focused tank production solely on the long barreled 75mm Pzkw IV and the Pzkw V “Panther” they would have produced thousands more tanks. My iPhones keyboard can’t make letters with accent marks, but the correct German pronunciation of Kampfwagen has a long “a” like calm Calmf woag gen, not Campf wagon and it’s pronounced Ess-pecially not ex-specially.
Nice rare footage but as others already stated, there was a limit to German industrial and fuel capacity. They built too many different types of tanks as it was. Edit: in fact you stated this at the end of the video. Lesson for me: watch until the end before commenting 😉. But I'll say one more thing - where did you get these German translations from? It's nice that you try but the source deserves to be rolled over by a tank, Beast of War-style 😎
the Krupp Zugfhurerwagen could be a an export success in 1935-1938 if suported by germany. many small countries were searching for tanks of this type, but after the great depression of 1933 the currency in many countries had no value and arms sales must be in hard currency, gold or raw materials or a lown to be granded. germany from many countries like in the balkans were accepting raw materials via clearing in great percentage and offered industrial goods and had found a market for their goods. in Greece its such country, importing tobbacco and other agricultural goods payed in industrial goods including arms from 1936-1938. Greece buy more than 250 AA/AT guns from germany and other items like radios, gas masks, field telephone equipment etc. Greece wanted to buy 20-40 light tanks but for strategic reasons germany were refused. from 1938 it had get cold over greece, one of reasons italy had shown in iterest for greece as their sphere of influance. on the other hand england and france wile wanted to keep greece on their side they refused to offer loans for arms sales untill 1939 when was too late! but on the same time giving loans for arms to turkey! they really screwed up in the balkans the allies prior WWII.
What is interesting is that during the battles after the Normandy invasion, especially in Holland, American 57mm anti-tank guns were able to knock out German Tiger tanks. There is an unconfirmed story that 57s were able to knock out 2 or 3 German Jagtiger Heavy Assault Guns (128 mm armament) during the end of the Battle of the Bulge or second Bulge (Nordwind).
I believe that the armament listed for the Pz IVc "neu art" FlaK Bus (8.8cmFlaK41/L74) was not installed until 1944. The original version mounts the "standard ach ach" (8.8cmFlaK36/L56). The chassis is more interesting to me for it was odd for a German WT design, being awkward in L:W, though given schachtellaufwerk for better distribution of weight. A problem for the vehicle was its uncommonly high silhouette, especially with the "wings" upright, but the ach ach was hard to conceal even when emplaced. Since many allied bombing attacks targeted rail yards and manufacturing centers reached by rail, a large number of FlaK weapons was made rail mobile, eliminating the need for a specialized carrier chassis within the Reich.
The night vision equiptment wasnt good enough. Hense the lack of adoption by their armed forces. Saying "if only they.. " is a rediculous thing to keep saying. Read up about the war more and you will realise there were many limitations and desperate shortages that prevented Germany ever winning. If germany built a million V rockets they might have won but they couldnt and didnt. Its simply pointless to say anything like this. Germany also would not have been ALLOWED to fight only at night. As soon as you realise your enemy has an advantage at night you would only fight in the daytime and at night you would retreat to defensive positions surrounded by every mine and gun you had and every light you could create thus negating the IR the germans had. The night vision the germans created was at best good for small suprise operations where your foe couldnt quickly light up the battlefield with flares. They simply couldnt produce enough to do anything else either. Its a bit of a stupid statement to be fair.
Simply you have a small country that was handicapped from the start. What Germany accomplished in a short amount of time was nothing less than amazing. German went from Toy tanks to tanks that simply annihilated all but the heaviest Russian tanks ( Jets, long range rockets, machine guns ect...) that came too late to the war. Like any country facing such overwhelming odds, limited resources and industry Germany did well for the limitations they had.
Agreed. What they accomplished was out of all proportion to what they should have done on paper as it were but this doesnt change the fact they faced overwhelming odds and were simply unable to produce enough war material or men to win. In the end its a simple matter really. It doesnt take much reading to realise this fact. These types of video i fear are made by those who havent really read up enough and base their theory on a computer game with tanks in it or a war game that bears very little similarity to the actual events. My compliments on a well written answer. Covers it all clearly and concisely.
Interesting take, thanks for that. I just want to help out with the German pronunciation here; "Leicht" means light and it's pronounced like "laysht" or as in Lies with an added "sht" at the end. The Krupp Zugführerwagen looks a lot like the Russian/Soviet BT/Christie tanks that they experimented with and led to the development of the BT-series of tanks that later inspired the A-32 and A-34 prototypes that led to the T-34. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_tank#/media/File:Medium_tank_A-32.jpg
The 50mm. L.60 KwK.39 / PaK.38 had the following performance: APCBC-HE PzGr.39 = Up to 99mm. RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres. APCR PzGr.40/1 = Up to 141mm. RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres. APCR PzGr.40/2 = Up to 165mm. RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres. After 1942, tungsten for APCR ammunition was in extremely limited supply, so the 50mm. L.60 would have been restricted to using APCBC-HE PzGr.39 ammunition, giving it a lacklustre performance against Allied tanks.
The Pz.II.F. & G had 35mm. of armour, so 30mm. is a reduction, not an increase. The Pz.II.G was armed with the French 37mm. L.33 KwK.38(f) tank gun and had no machine guns, as a consequence of the installation.
VK1602 is one I think that could of done something good for the Reich. A light mini Panther with a 5cm L/60. Why? It was light weight, meaning lower fuel consumption needs, could cross far more bridges across Europe. It had wide tracks so light weight combined with displacement meant it could cross control VERY WELL. And it had 50mm of sloped armor, which would of made it studier at least on paper than late war Panzer IV Medium tanks. Combine that with the fact the 5cm L/60 could handle most allied and soviet armor even up to the end of the war from modest ranges, and could handle any tank in the war from the flanks/rear including the heaviest tanks which saw action. Well with all those factors combined, it could of been a good all around vehicle. Definitely if combined arms mobility warfare was practiced properly again...... yes I'm looking at how German Army somehow forgot how to fight a war as the war went on and on. Then again material reasons were partly responsible. Kinda hard when you don't have enough artillery, anti tank guns and anti aircraft guns for how massive the German Army grew between 1942-1944. Yes the German Army was massive even before their front collapsed in 44. But they badly lacked equipment. They were starting to see the situation that Italian and Romanians had. 11:48 btw that vehicle there is a GREAT vehicle on War Thunder. You can even kill MBTs with it when flanking. It has the nickname of the Baby Tiger, or Tini Tiger. It is a lot of fun in short if you can get your hands on the vehicle in the game.
Strange how they put the Luchs light recce tank into production and neglected to do the same with the Leopard another light recon tank and superior in fire power [ a mini Panther in fact . ]
The best use of panzer 1, 2 and 38t would be as indirect weapon carriers. Convert salvaged battlefield wrecks and existing operational tanks, not new production. The panzer 1& 2 lines needed to be terminated. Mostly 8cm &12cm mortars and leichtes infantanterie geschuzten. Using the 1942 heavy weapons brigade organization, so these weapons would be in addition to what was already issued. Guderian would have thrown a fit until you gave him back 1 for 1 15cm and 10.5 cm howitzer carriers. Paulus would have sighed some relief as he saw infantry support weapons being mechanized. Perhaps even panzer 2s and 38ts being converted to turretless stugs like the Italian Semovente with angled upper and lower glacis (like the vk 1602) and the 7.5cm infanteriegeschütz for its smaller 1 piece ammo for faster rate of fire and more ammo capacity. But still it would have made 0 difference. Fewer horse drawn crew served weapons would have freed up horses and men for supply columns. For an increase in demand for supplies and fuel. They still would have only made it 600-700 kilometers before supply lines were stretched to maximum capacity. Maybe more infantry would have survived to this point. But same outcome of the war.
Given the threat ; PANZER JAGGER where more desperately needed. Mortar carriers are critical too but a 3 ton Zugkraftwagen could mount such a weapon in back with 1/2 dozen crew towing a ammo trailer...plus 1/2 in bolt on armor all way round. WORKS AT A PINCH AND GOOD ENOUGH.
The 37mm gun was outdated as a tanks main armament by 1940, the German anti-tank crews who used the 37mm anti-tank gun, upon which the tank gun was based, referred to it as” Hitler’s door knocker” due to its inability to actually penetrate many of the tanks used by the Western allies at the start of W.W.II.
VK-1602 design was developed through 1941/42 ; B-4 being cancelled mid war AS NOT NEEDED. It had 3.1m wide chassis that was 4.75 m long. This "LEOPARD" tank had an 'up armoured' "PUMA" turret bringing the height to 2.6m and mass to 21 ton. That puts it squarely in the region as the Panzer III medium tank , a tank that was mass produced through 1943 and then as assault gun through the rest of the war. In comparison with Pz-III , the big difference would be 50mm sloped frontal and 30mm sloped side armor and turret , which Pz III could only dream about!!!!!. Further the larger Pz-III HL120 engine, would bring the chassis length to 5.4m and its mass too over 23 tons.....same region as Pz-III. However that also means less engine power [300hp vs 550hp] and lower 'Power to weight ratio.' ...which drops the notional 'top speed' from 60 to ~48 kph...but still better than Panzer III tank/STuG-III.
The Germans' biggest problem wasn't just fuel, it was lack of manufacturing capacity. 800 Luchs were ordered and there was talk of putting 50mm guns on them, but lack of capacity meant the factory concentrated on Panthers and only 100 Luchs were made. In reality light tanks would have fallen victim to air attack, artillery and allied tanks too easily, so they would never have been useful except for reconnaissance.
You should not forget, that based on the restrictions of the Versailles treaty, Germany was not allowed to produce any tanks! The Reichswehr was developing tanks in secret together with Russia before 1933, and only after Hitler became Reichskanzler in 1933, Germany began openly to ignore the Versailles treaty, also in responce to USA, UK and France, whom did not follow the treaties obligations themselfs. E.g. the reduction of navies postulated in the treaty was only performed by Germany, all others increased their armament.
Industrial capacity and a lack of vital raw materials were the real limiting factors for the Nazi war machine. Not forgetting very poorly organised logistical support. Something that is quite hard to believe given the German mentality, and the fact their supply lines were becoming shorter and shorter as they retreated back to Germany. German units fought each other for spare parts at railheads and depots. Never an issue for US Lee or Sherman tanks, despite support needing to cross the Atlantic. More different types of German AFV's at the front would have required even more logistical backup. The three age old key factors to successfully waging war Logistics, logistics and logistics. In modern technological warfare best remembered as: Logistics - secured supplies of excess components and raw materials to manufacturing sites. Logistics - rapid/efficient use of those materials. Design - ease of production/use and repair to meet (or better, to exceed) demand. Logistics - rapid and flexible transport of sufficient quantities to front line units. Continued replenishment available as required.
StuG III was defence weapon and little use in attack. Sherman was good on offence with good reliability. Reversing that role into assault gun was waste of good industry and crews.
It was not as useful to an army that was not on the defensive. The stug was really a stop gap vehicle, a compromise to gain an anti tank weapon quickly. It was not as versatile as a turreted tank in actuallity. Sure in a computer game it seems great but these games really dont reflect reality. Not as much as people seem to think anyway. It did sport a bigger gun and good frontal armour for its size but that wont help if your enemy is to your side even if they have a small AT gun. The allies simply didnt need this type of gun.. Im not sure it would be that great either. You would still have the higher profile of the body, the engine and transmission of the sherman made it a tall tank, thus eliminating one of the positive features of the stug, and the nearest gun to the stug 3's 75mmL/48 the allies had would be the 76mm M1 or the british 17 pounder 3inch (76mm) Both of which were already on turrets. The only reason youd want it ina tank like the stug would be the low profile and be able to hide it. Bit pointless when youre attacking accross open ground.
What the Germans used were their 88 mm anti-tank artillery and their Tank destroyers. These were much cheaper and easier to make. Their heavy tanks were too few to make any difference as many broke down due to mechanical designs. Anyway, the Allied air superiority neutralized their individualized superiority. Heavy bombers would have destroyed mass formations of German tanks at Normandy. Remember this, the Germans at the start of the War, used tanks as part of their offensives. From 1943 on, the Germans used their tanks as defense.
This is less a question on what tanks they should’ve built and more about the ones they shouldn’t have built. The Tigers, Elephant and Maus were a waste of time and resources that could’ve gone into more medium tanks and tank destroyers.
The treaty of Versailles reduced the German ability to (re)build their army, navy and airforce, reducing Germany to a much poorer country, forcing them to develop in secret and make cutting decisions. It also forced them into WW2 perhaps. One option would perhaps have been diesel engines for the tanks, developing long-range bombers for the Eastern front and not indulging in silly and too-many projects for (superheavy) weapons. Taking out the radar and airfields of the British, not attacking Leningrad and going for the Arabic and Libian oilfields? Building more submarines instead of battleships? The tanks you are suggesting would not have many any difference.
Note resting material but you need to get a lo of your facts aligned: ex.: Low Countries, also now know as Benelux are Belgium, Holland and Luxemburg. They were the gateway to France in 1940. Denmark a Norway are about as related to the Low Countries as Estonia.
Leichttraktor: you pronounced ‘chttraktor‘ quite well, however, German ‘ei‘ is similar to the i in‘ light‘ (not heavy). There‘s also a noun‘ Licht‘; that‘s what you said.
Research done in World of Tanks? Please, at least try to get the German right. E.g. Zugfuhrer means Command tank. This Pz was only armed for last ditch self defence. They eventually had this role done by old Pz.1 with a fixed superstructure. This is no serious article. Very good rare pictures of your 6 subjects though. Pity of the mix of unrelated footitsch between them.
There is no footage of these tanks , and the zugfuher wagon was listed as an experimental export medium tank. It would been than the Pz1 command variant, which was already obsolete by 1941. As the allied command tanks were much larger and had anti-tank guns.
He also makes other small mistakes, such as saying denmark is part of the low countries. And theres also a bunch of weird/bad sentence structures. For example: "the czech 35 and 38t" this of course doesnt really make sense seeing as the t in 38t stands for german word for czech. The fact the starts with calling the panzer 1 the panzerkampfwagen 1 and then says panzer 2. If you use the full word for the 1st one also use the full word for the 2nd one
Grilli 10? Seriously? You have all the stats in front of you and research materials, and yet you still managed spell it wrong? It's Grille ('grill ,eh), not Grilli. Grillis don't exist. Never did.
You missed out a somewhat important one the Panzer 38(t) n.A. this was a design put forward as a competitor to the Luchs but could be armed with a 5cm L/60 gun, it was simpler to produce, had just as good armour and speed, and was more reliable. hell the entire reason the luchs was canceled after 100 vehicles was reliability issues (they orginally wanted atleast 500). it iwas also closer to existing designs and thus would have been quicker to put into production. it wouldn't have changed the war, but it would have been better than what the Germans actually did (the failed luchs, and then no real replacement) As for the vehicles in the video, a leichtraktor variant instead of the panzer I and II, and the Zugfuhrerwagen (or a variant thereof) instead of the panzer III and IV are the most important vehicles. the Zugfuhrerwagen is faster, just as well armed and better armoured than the Pz III and IV at the start of the war, and was simpler to produce and was lighter and thus could be used on more bridges and terrain (the result of being a 4 man tank instead of a 5 man tank, and with hindsight we know the 5th man is unnecessary) and could do the jobs of both. haveing only 2 production tanks instead of 4 would have simplified and thus accelerated production and supply and thus not only would they have had better tanks at the beginning of the war but they would have had more of them. also haveing future tanks based of the 4-man crew layout of the Zugfuhrerwagen would have also resulted in a better panther equivalent (saveing weight and space) and thus probably an earlier panther. now you mention this probably wouldn't have been enough to change the war, which is probably right. however more tanks and better tanks in poland-france, means fewer loses (more guns shooting for longer means fewer enemy guns shooting back, etc) meaning more (and better) tanks and experiance for fighting the USSR, meaning more success in 1941, meaning less soviets in the counter offensive. meaning further into the USSR with more men and machines in 1942, meaning closer to the oil fields and thus a higher chance of securing the needed oil and crippling the USSR in 1942 (the soviets can't fight without oil either, and lendlease simply wasn't good enough to meet the oil demand). While no means certain, i would say there is atleast a small chance of changeing the outcome of the war, atleast as far as making the soviets a non-player at the end of the war (i don't think germany could beat the USA-UK alliance, due to the A-bomb if nothing else)
None of these would have made any difference. The problem is that the Germans kept cranking out a new unproven design again and again. They should have stuck with the Panzer IV. The Tiger I/II and Panther were big mistakes that just ate up already scarce time, money and resources. Both were known for being horribly unreliable. A updated Panzer IV with better armor and gun would have made a big difference and could have prolonged the war by a year or even two. I don't know if it would have led to an Axis victory but it would have made life harder for the Allies. Impressive as the Tiger was, it was a mistake still. Its entire chassis and frame couldn't work with a wimpy transmission and incredibly heavy turret. Those two issues basically guaranteed that it would be unreliable and a waste of everything: fuel, time, material, money, manpower. The Tiger I tank was one of the biggest blunders the Germans ever made.
They did up gun the Panzer 4 it proved to be the equal of Allied tanks, not a good thing when you are heavily outnumbered. What Germany needed was the original Panther before it was up armored The added weight of the armor is what caused the mechanical unreliability
The only strategic victories the Germans won were with Pz IIIs and IVs. But even if they had not diverted scarce resources to complex systems like the Tigers and Panthers, they still didn't have the fuel or a competent logistics train train.
The main reason these tanks were not produced is because Germany had issues with resources, fuel, manpower, and manufacturing. There was no reason to produce these tanks because they already had vehicles that fulfilled these roles that were better or comparable in production and any changes would have disrupted production lines. As far as equipping allies this was not Hitlers policy and this did not change till it was too late in the war.
0:55 Its the Toaster!! .... when I play this tank in World of Tanks Blitz, I always ask everyone before battle if they would like some toast... or some poptarts. Those Leopards ( 8:35 ) would have been the pestiest tanks ever. They sure are on WoTB... little snots.. running around shooting other tanks in the butt... LOL
Leichttraktor and the early Pz3 could have increased the power of German Panzer Divisions in 1939-1940. The 50mm Pz2 would have been a fairly cheap modification that could have a decent effect on 1941-1942. The half-track TD would be the only thing capable of dealing with Soviet heavy tanks in Barbarossa. All of these vehicles could have been useful, though would not change the outcome of the war. The only one I don’t see having an effect is the Leopard.
Grille (not Grilli) 10 was not a tank, but a kind of selfpropelled AT-gun. Used as a tank, it would fail terrible in combat. On the western front after D-Day the Germans lacked of small AA-guns against the strafing fighter-bombers. So, this vehicle would have been useful with 3 cm quadruple AA-gun, with four MK 108 for example.
My money would have been on the VK1602...a.k.a. The 'Baby Panther' nee Leopard. At the typical western European combat ranges, the 5cm L60 was still plenty lethal (especially for flank shots). And, it's compact design would have worked well with typical narrow urban streets (not to mention mobility in forests). For combat recon, it would eaten M3 / M5 Stuarts for breakfast/lunch/dinner... As for export, it was light-years better than 90% of the trash tanks the Italians/Romanians/Hungarians were using. P.S. -- I agree concerning choice #3 (the Krupp experimental); if the Italians had gotten off their high horse (and the Germans had been a bit more reasonable), this tank would have gone a loooong way to winning North Africa by 1942 (especially if the 45mm had used). As for the Hungarians and Romanians...they would have thought the Krupp was the greatest thing since butterbrot & vodka. 😉
being light and fast it would have also had better deployability and reliability. as for being better than italian tanks, well yes and no, the italian contemporary to the leopard was the P43bis which the germans considered to be just as good (on paper) as the panther. as for the Krupp experiemntal, its got the same armour and firepower as the main italian tanks and its not mutch faster, its adavantge would be the extra 5-6 years of production. also the italians asked the germans for tanks and even paid for some two divisions worth. but they were never delivered. don't blame the italians, blame the germans for being bad business partners, hell the germans gave the soviets a few panzer iiis when they asked for some before 1941 but they never did the same for the italians despite the italians actually paying for them...
Lightly armored tanks were not what the German army wanted. They could be easily defeated by anti-tank rifles etc. The need to protect experienced well-trained tank crews was more important. The German Army then up shielded Panzer 4;s and then began producing 5's and 6's
These videos are great, but my main complain would be german or foreign pronunciations. I would suggest typing those into google translate and clicking voice command in order to hear them and understand as good as possible.
I think, mass producing 6 most tank/tank destroyer types would be just resorce waste. If they produce those, than this minds less Pz IV, Panther, Tiger tanks, and tank destroyers where produced. And on secund thouth, if a prototype is not produced, that minds, it has serious flaws, what needs years to be eliminated. There was two things that Germany did't had enough, resorces, and time.
It didn't matter what kind or how many tanks the Germans did or didn't build. Because they didn't have enough fuel too field them all. In fact most German tanks were destroyed by their own crew. And let's not forget that fuel shortage also effected there air force. Which lead to many of there most of the tome immobile tanks to be destroyed by the air. The Battle of the bulge it a good example of all of said points above. There plan was dependent on taking the allies fuel while the weather was too bad for aircraft. Then the weather turned before they got said fuel. They didn't have enough fuel to make back with their tanks. So they destroyed many of them themselves.
Why bother when a lot of successful variants were based on the panzer 3 and panzer 4 chassis ? You also do not take into account how the war changed for Germany. In the first half they were fighting an offensive war. In the second half they were fighting a defensive war. Another thing you do not think of is the holy trinity of tank design speed, armour and firepower and where you compromise to achieve the best result for the role of the vehicle you are designing.
Where was the steel and fuel coming from? Germany had to import both. And their allies were buying from the same sources. Light vehicles as you propose are very vulnerable to artillery, the great killer of tanks. Open top vehicles have great vulnerabilities to their crews as well they weapon and drive systems to artillery.
Its terms of getting tanks to Japan during WWII. Good luck shipping them when you don't control the Suez Canal or Strait of Gibraltar. Mix in their focus needed to disrupt allied shipping, which only slowed the inevitable defeat. The germans would of never been able to support japan with any form of armour because transport by submarine would of been the only safe way to do it, and those arent being pulled from combat just to transport cargo. Tiger 131 is an example of that if I'm not mistaken, bought buy the Japanese, commandeered by the Germanys to continue the fight in Europe. I also beleive the route Germany took tank was still the wisest choice. As likely stated somewhere converting medium, light and heavy tanks chassis i to classmates doenst change the tooling and manufacturing needs and cuts costs by removing the turret.
if they had the armor they could have taken Stalingrad and the oil fields!!! then again if they bypassed Stalingrad took the oilf fields then swung back tings might have turned out different too!!!
At the start of ww2 Germany did not have the best tanks... they were the only ones who knew how to properly use tanks at the start... and thier communications within the tanks were the best so that they could out maneuver thier opponents
Slightly flawed logic. The Germans had perfectly good tank designs throughout the war - it was their inability to produce them that was the problem. Having another design that you COULD build doesn't mean you CAN build it, because you don't have the factories/steel/rubber/oil to do it. The best of these designs might have been VK1601, but what was the point in building it when you could build a Panzer IV instead? The half track was cancelled because it was pointless - just build a tank instead - and the reason the two survived for a year in North Africa was not that they were a wonder weapon, it's just that they didn't see frontline use because what do you do with just two of them, with no spares? Grilli is a completely dumb idea - take an anti-aircraft gun that you can tow with a truck and make it less mobile by putting it on a massively expensive tank chassis with a known reliability issue. Honestly, these are all interesting designs and it would be good to know more about them e.g. what the trials showed and why they weren't selected for mass production. Would happily re-watch the video then.
Unless the Germans built a tank that could magically produce vast amounts of fuel and solve their manpower shortages, there is no tank that would have really made a big difference. The Germans adopted the best tanks they could in light of the situation that faced them at the time.
Yup, hard to fight tank warfare when you don't control the skies and keep running out of (skilled) men and fuel.
Lame.... I mean what a boring no shit response to this video. Clearly the obvious points, a country the size of Wisconsin taking on the world? For what they had they did rather well with it. No country was going to win against those odds. With what they had they did more so than most countries, clearly were respected and feared.
@@ChristopherSloane I don't think you will get much likes with that comment!
@@clausbohm9807 life is about being liked, huh?
@@datadavis Are you having a bad day because it sure sound like it ... lighten up it will de you better.
An interesting side note is that this LEOPARD turret was the first iteration of the "Schmalturm" turret [narrowed to reduce chances of frontal hits and greatly increase armor through sloped turret ] . That was achieved by designing the side turret to double as the front armor at extreme side angle. So from the frontal POV - the 30mm side turret ARMOR was FRONT TURRET at compounded angle of 63o resulting in LOS armor of 66mm, from front. That represented ½ front turret profile leaving 30mm @ 20o for the other ½ of the front turret profile..
However the KwK-39 main gun 50L60 , had large ‘state of the art’ "Saukopfblende” mantle dominating the front turret. This was about 30mm cast armor @ 65o COMPOUNDED ANGLE OR same protection as the rest of the SIDE/FRONT turret. ...meaning the about 66mm protection covers at least ¾ of the LEOPARD front turret profile.
Furthermore since this LEOPARD chassis is already the size of StuGIII , then the LEOPARD should be able to replace StuG-III production , and could become the Defacto StuG, complete with sloped front & side armor plus 75L48 gun.
This same turret design was used in 1943 to put a 50L60 gun in Schmalturm turret on the very large 11-12 ton armoured car [SdKfz 234]. Front armor was 30mm on turret and chassis with10mm side armor @ 25o [compounded angle 63o] …. LOS was around ~ 34mm front turret.
It also looks like it was the final turret designed for the Panther F in 1945 [few turrets completed before VE day, but none deployed] .
This featured the 75L70 KwK-42 gun mounted on 7.6 ton turret with 120mm front armor @ 20o plus the 150mm “pot” mantle and side turret armor of 60mm @ 25o. Needless to say the compounded side turret angle was 63o from front ; resulting in about 132mm LOS thickness through about ¾ frontal profile.
For completeness that Panther Schmalturm was to get a stabilized sight and design adapted to mount 88L71 gun with possibly some built by end of 1945 after > 1000 Panther F...Completed.
Have you ever considered that the reason that these things were not produced was that the German Army knew that they had flaws that made them inferior to their other designs? Have you also considered that the German Army did just fine in its invasion of Europe at the beginning of the war? As far as lacking tank production later in the war, it was not a problem of design, but industrial capacity to actually produce sufficient numbers of the designs that they had in production.
nope. just because the germans used a design doesn't mean its the best.
-firstly we have hindsight, they didn't. we know the kind of war they actually will fight and the problems they will run into.while they might have thought the design they used was better for what they imagined they needed doesn't mean it was better for what they actually needed.
-secondly, we don't have political issues interfering with designs.
-3rdly the german army didn't do just fine, it had a large number of issues they themselves recognized and tried to fix as the war went on, just because they won the campaigns doesn't mean they did fine. we with hindsight can point to designs that would have reduced or eliminated those issues.
-4thly the issue was not actually the number produced later in the war but oil and reliability. they produced more tanks then they could actually run. issues they wouldn't have if they had better designs in the beginning of the war (the former as they could have helped capture oil of they were sufficiently good enough, and the later because a design more able to be upgraded would have reduced reliability issues)
for example in the video he mentions the leichtraktor. the germans originally chose the panzer Is and IIs over it because they decided 37mm guns were overkill, an assumption they realized was incorrect leading to panzer III and IV, if they had simply built the Leichtraktors (or variants of it) they would have done mutch better in Poland (as said in the video they germans lost some 500 pz is & iis in poland as a result of said vehicle's under armed status), france and the USSR.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 not entirely true new designs would have slowed production down and made reliability even worse due to the inefficient production lines the Nazis had
Keeping designs to the minimums they did was even a problem tho because they still had variations in production lack of spare parts and reliability problems. Adding more vehicles to that would only make it worse
Another thing is that the Nazis would have run out of oil in the same amount of time no matter what because you are only thinking of the tank armored units themselves not the entire war as a whole, you have infantry support vehicles (half tracks) trucks for supply lines, the luftwaffe and all the planes they had from 1939-1943 and the kriegsmarine with all of its u-boats, also even tho civilian vehicle transportation was highly limited during the war as the nazi party put high restrictions on fuel consumption to save fuel for the war effort there were still some vehicles driving around like busses.
Another problem was not just reliability and lack of oil for armored units at the end of the war but man power they didn’t have enough people to run there armored units.
I will agree on something tho the pz1 and pz2 were very ineffective even though they made up the bulk of the armor the Nazis had at the time, they were simply just targets while units like the pz3 would do the cleanup.
Well, war is simply wrong. But the Germans failed to follow the advice of Sun Tzu and Carl von Clausewitz as to war. Oh, and the Germans failed in the areas of demographics, logistics, geography and communications, especially in the latter. Insecure communications were for sure the kiss of death and they simply didn't have the quality replacement troops and attrition finally did them in.
i never said these tanks were meant to replace all existing german tanks. The Krupp Liechtraktor would replace only the Pz I and Pz II, The other tanks i mentioned would only complement existing tanks and vehicles in places like north Africa or be sold as export vehicles to Germany's Axis Allies. This is all just what-if at the end of the day.
Its hard to produce military equipment with factories and whole cities being systematically bombed out of existence 🤔
Adding more types of tanks would _not_ have resulted in a greater number of operative tanks. Germany was producing as many tanks as was possible given available resources, available skilled labour, and the gradual loss of capacity due to strategic bombing. If, say, the tank divisions in France got more light tanks, they would also have fewer medium and heavy tanks. As light tanks were lambs to the slaughter considering all the kinds of anti-tank weaponry available in 1944, building more of these types of tanks would have made the Germans less able to defend themselves, not more.
In every theatre except possibly Italy, supply was even more of a limiting factor for operations than it usually is. In North Africa where lack of usable ports meant that Rommel's Panzer-Armee Afrika had to be supplied by trucks driving a distance equivalent to Berlin-Moscow and then back again; or on the eastern front where railroads had to be re-laid to German gauge to be useful, meaning that units were usually on impossible distances from railheads; or in France from 1944 when supply columns were frequently wiped out by ground-attack aircraft, in all these places supplies had to be calculated and packed very carefully so as to not waste transport capacity. If you add new types of vehicles that need to be supplied with oddball calibres like 4.5cm or parts for gearboxes and engines not found anywhere else, the quartermasters are going to be breaking your windows at night.
Also, some of the types mentioned here _were_ produced an a more developed form.
The "could have been build" was something the Germans were very much aware of. In fact they had numerous "could have" projects all the time that had to be cancelled.
Production time and resources were very much the limiting factor NOT the availibility of the "could have" projects.
Even at the end of the war when everything was lost and Germany was already in ruins there were still some new projects being started.
Germany never went from bespoke tank production to mass production of tanks. This ment all tanks were individually fitted and spares were not interchangeable
Those end of war project served a valuable purpose
They kept trained engineers from being drafted and sacrificed and suicidal defensive actions
Germany wasted too much time on different weapon designs, they never had a clear plan and once they failed to take Moscow it was all over but the crying. Leopards vs Pzkw I & II’s would have been an major upgrade but German Arrogance in thinking they had the War wrapped up ruined their planning and they got spanked for it.
I'm pretty sure when going through archives of all major WW2 opponents, all had a similar amount of "could have been" designs which weren't adopted for various reasons. That's not a German thing, it's just people seem to be more interested in German designs, possibly because they lost and possibly for their engineering reputation. Certainly towards the end of the war Germany became more and more desperate, naturally. Also the Allies could be much more relaxed with development avoiding to field in mature designs.
Leichttraktor was never planned to be a service tank, the reason it was given the name leichttraktor (light tractor), was because Germany was forbidden from developing tanks in the Versaille treaty. So to hide their tank program, they called it a tractor to hide the build from the Allies; similarly, that is how the name 'Tank' was created in WWI, tank like water tank was used so if code was broken and they ready "tank is being transported', that they wouldn't think of a weapon of war.
The leichttraktor was specifically build as a training tank for both the men but especially for the manufacturing industry, to learn and develop proper manufacturing processes. The Panzer I was a drastic improvement over the leichttraktor.
The pronounciation in the video made my teeth hurt.
Germany should've had concentrated on building Panzer IVs with long barrel high velocity guns and Panthers and not waste resources on Tigers and other heavy and super heavy tank developement.
Germany was literally scraping the barrel with crews and petrol and you want them to make MORE tanks than they had historically?
Germany needed methods to produce and protect their oil, and more reliable and powerful tanks. Hence the E-Series studies.
@@ThatZenoGuy Panzer IVs with long barrel high velocity guns were effective enough to take on the Soviet T-34s and Panthers were powerful enough to take care of pretty much everything bigger that the Soviets and Allies had. Panzer IV and Panthers consumed less fuel than Tigers, were more mobile and had better operational range.
@@hendriktonisson2915
Panther had the same engine as the Tiger, it consumed about as much gasoline due to this. The Panther was an inefficient design that could've been cut down a little, while enhanced in others.
Panzer 4 was way outdated once America joined the war, StuG's were far more effective in the defensive war Germany found itself in.
Tiger's had thick side armor which made them far harder to deal with, a surprising amount of shots in WW2 came from the sides rather than the front.
@@ThatZenoGuy I don't agree about the Panzer IV. It was not in any way obsolete. It was effective enough to deal with T-34s and Shermans especially the later model Panzer IVs with upgraded armour.
I agree with ZenoGuy. Building more tanks Woudn't really help them much since they were basically scraping for everysingle barrel of oil and building more tank woudn't have really help much if those said tank weren't properly fuel up combine with Allies Bomber bombing their industry 24/7
Wicked Awesome Jay!
The Pzkpfw 38 (t) did everything the Leichttraktor could - and better - and was produced in numbers already.
Me thinks that 'World of Tanks' and 'War Thunder' doth influence reasoning too much...
Lmao what?
Lol you really made me laugh. I was mid gulp drinking my tea and i spat some over my shirt as i read it. Lol thanks for that!! 😂
(this youtuber is great! He gets things so mixed up THATS the best thing about them)
You guys, lmaof.
The Germans could have built lots of things but they didn't have the resources to build them nor the oil to run them. So this is somewhat irrelevant
there is a reason the video focuses on prewar and early war vehicles, when they had both.
As these events occurred circa 80 years ago and that this video is now just for interest’s sake, your comment is now not only ‘somewhat irrelevant’ but also needlessly spiteful.
I hope my comment on your comment demonstrates to you, for future reference, how unpleasant it is to have something you’ve done described as “irrelevant” and that in future, if you feel that you can’t be “benevolent” about someone’s work that you will at least be quiet rather than needlessly unpleasant.
They didn’t have the Vision either
A collaboration between Germany and the USSR to manufacture tanks is a weird chapter in history . Excellent video and Thanks .
collaboration between Germany , USSR and USA is strange but shows that corporation were playing cards those time as much as now!
They also ran a shell company to maintain the know-how of building submarines. We bought a design for three subs from them.
What about the Standard Oil patents transferred to Germany or the IBM punch cards used by them? 🤔 the list is long
If they built more of these tanks, there would have been fewer of the others. Unless they were better, there was no point.
firstly did you watch the video? he explains on the very first tank that it was better for what they ended up facing then what they built historically (leichtraktor & ZugFuhrerwagen > panzer I & II), infact the Zugfuhrerwagen is better than the orginal panzer III & IV designs.
->aditionally lighter designs could be built in larger numbers in the same time period and resources. one of the early prototypes of the leopard light tank for example was estimated as being able to produce 2-3 for every panzer 4. it has superior mobility and armour, and there were plans it give it equal firepower, but even the 5cm armed one would be good enough against the western allies in 1944 (if not 45),
->while the vehicle labeled 'Pz II M' in the video could be built 3-5 for every pz III (the eqivilient vehicle of the time, 1940-41). the german army really liked the vehicle, it was canceled due to Hitler.
secondly, you seem to be ignorant to the fact germany didn't adopt a full war economy until midway through the war. if they had adopted it earlier they could have built more earlier. hell the germans went through periods in 1939 and 1940 where they stoped building tanks (rather than stockpileing more)
@@matthiuskoenig3378 The biggest issues facing the Heer during the war was lack of fuel and personnel. Adopting swarms of okay-ish tanks would have done nothing but compound these issues. The best thing for the Germans to have done was to build relatively few of the best tanks they could, as it was a more efficient use of resources. Its better to build 15 Panthers that you can crew and reasonably fuel than build 50 PzII M, of which 25 can be crewed, and have even bigger fuel issues.
@@stikfigz Your understanding of German fuel economy during the war is frightenly ignorant. German fuel consumption was 10 million tons in 1940 and 12 million tons by 1944. Meanwhile German motor-vehicle inventory reduces from ~2.8 million in 1940 to 1.5 million motor-vehicles in 1944.
I regret to inform you that mechanized vehicles don't make enough of a difference. Wehrmacht fuel consumption was 200,000 tons per month from 41-44, but peaked in the summer of 1941 to 400,000 tons per month.
After that its a steady rise in fuel consumption from 200,000 tons per month in early 1942 and a steady increases to 300,000 tons per month mid 1942 and through mid 1943, when military consumption -levels off at 400,000 tons per month until late 1944, when allied bombing campaign cripples the entire economy.
The only thing the German could have done is mounting remote controlled Panzerschrecks on light tanks similar to the American Jeep-Mounted Quad Bazooka. Hence, light tanks can fight against heavier tanks while being a mobile pillbox for infantry support.
Would not work. Especially on the eastern front the russians enjoyed advanced artillery support which they used before major attacks. Up until they are hidden and using suprise they could knock out some tanks. but without it they would be esposed to the elements and could not be used offensivelly.
I have to say i like your thinking. Now if we just create this for a board game or computer game it would be great!
As for it hapoening in ww2 i doubt Germany was ever in any position to turn things around with any new tank adaption. They were simply overwhelmed by too many adversaries on too many fronts.
I could imagine the Germans were smart enough to produce a top mounted remote anti tank missile system much like the ones that appeared in tge 1960s etc but i doubt they could have produced enough in time. Its easy to take our later successful ideas in warfare and retrofit them to the past and say that would have worked. Hindsight is 20 20 and all that. Problem is no one did think of it back in the past, thats WHY the new ideas are so good. In a way we could take this further and say if germany launched weapon carrying satellites on the V weapons and bombed from orbit they could have won this or that. Ok thats a bit exaggerated compared to putting remote panzerfausts on tanks but you see my point? They didnt do it because of a thousand reasons. Mainly because several huge countries were bombing the crap out of them and rolling tanks into them.
Actually they did make a tank with several panzerschreks on top but they werent remotely fired, more like a mini ammunition carrier but its not far off what youre talking about....
Called the "bedbug"
en.topwar.ru/94528-protivotankovaya-samohodnaya-artilleriyskaya-ustanovka-wanze-germaniya.html
Im definitly subscribing along with your 66,600 other subscribers
Steel, factories production priorities, fuel, and transport all contributed to the German tank choices.
Mostly they managed to use what they had effectively till the allies learned to fight effectively.
The TOY FACTORY was built to mass produce Panzer IV from 1940/41 on...but in the first few years they only managed to build a handful of Pz-IV. By the end of 41 they were backlog of orders about 228, but instead only 4 tanks were completed.
Meanwhile 6 VK 3001 were ordered in 1941which was the same industry to build 39 more Pz-IV, meanwhile preparations were also made to build 100 VK-1302 [3.5 ton munition schepper], although only 28 were built.
Constant having to retool the factory for new model that get constantly cancelled.... costing months to retool for the next model , but producing nothing.
In 1942 the pattern continued with 100 VK-4501P ordered @ 4 million RM each, only to be cancelled . That would be about 2400 Pz-IV worth of industry in 1942. The 90 Elephant hulls left 265 Pz-IV industry. Historically 1000 Pz-IV tanks were produced in 1942, suggesting the balance [~740] was from the other factory's .
I’m glad UA-cam recommended this video to me. Like the content and the presentation.
New subscriber here.
Fuel was a huge problem for. Germans throughout the ww2, but this was an interesting selection of vehicles.
Interesting video thanks for posting.
One thing the 37mm was found to be pretty ineffective against French armor and I feel like it would have been even worse against Soviet armor, also the lichtraktor was not even designed for combat it was specifically made for training and that’s it. In many videos I watch of yours, you seem to simply forget that the nazis had already stretched there forces way to think across Europe and there oil reserves we basically gone. Tanks are not a deciding factor of war it’s in maneuvering of all troops and a major deciding factor of how well your armored units will do is your air force which the luftwaffe was non existent in 43-45 leaving all armored units vulnerable to bombings
You miss the point completely here. Germany was never able to fully meet its own needs for tanks so talking about diverting production to export to its allies is a non starter. By the time of DDay they were on the defensive on every front so a light tank was much less interesting than a tank destroyer like the hetzer. You are completely off track.
Leicht is pronounced “Liked” with a T instead of the D ending! Meaning light, easily, mildly or slightly..
Some good observations and ideas to ponder!
The film footage was very good, but why you think producing a whole bunch of obsolete tanks would’ve helped Nazi Germany win WWII is just bizarre. It was the Nazis wasting their resources trying to produce a myriad of different tanks that caused them come up short. If they’d focused tank production solely on the long barreled 75mm Pzkw IV and the Pzkw V “Panther” they would have produced thousands more tanks. My iPhones keyboard can’t make letters with accent marks, but the correct German pronunciation of Kampfwagen has a long “a” like calm
Calmf woag gen, not
Campf wagon and it’s pronounced
Ess-pecially not ex-specially.
Nice rare footage but as others already stated, there was a limit to German industrial and fuel capacity. They built too many different types of tanks as it was. Edit: in fact you stated this at the end of the video. Lesson for me: watch until the end before commenting 😉. But I'll say one more thing - where did you get these German translations from? It's nice that you try but the source deserves to be rolled over by a tank, Beast of War-style 😎
The soviet 45 mm shell used surplus 37mm german shells re necked for 45mm
the Krupp Zugfhurerwagen could be a an export success in 1935-1938 if suported by germany. many small countries were searching for tanks of this type, but after the great depression of 1933 the currency in many countries had no value and arms sales must be in hard currency, gold or raw materials or a lown to be granded. germany from many countries like in the balkans were accepting raw materials via clearing in great percentage and offered industrial goods and had found a market for their goods. in Greece its such country, importing tobbacco and other agricultural goods payed in industrial goods including arms from 1936-1938. Greece buy more than 250 AA/AT guns from germany and other items like radios, gas masks, field telephone equipment etc. Greece wanted to buy 20-40 light tanks but for strategic reasons germany were refused. from 1938 it had get cold over greece, one of reasons italy had shown in iterest for greece as their sphere of influance. on the other hand england and france wile wanted to keep greece on their side they refused to offer loans for arms sales untill 1939 when was too late! but on the same time giving loans for arms to turkey! they really screwed up in the balkans the allies prior WWII.
What is interesting is that during the battles after the Normandy invasion, especially in Holland, American 57mm anti-tank guns were able to knock out German Tiger tanks. There is an unconfirmed story that 57s were able to knock out 2 or 3 German Jagtiger Heavy Assault Guns (128 mm armament) during the end of the Battle of the Bulge or second Bulge (Nordwind).
"American 57mm anti-tank guns " = British 6lbers :)
Source?
I believe that the armament listed for the Pz IVc "neu art" FlaK Bus (8.8cmFlaK41/L74) was not installed until 1944. The original version mounts the "standard ach ach" (8.8cmFlaK36/L56). The chassis is more interesting to me for it was odd for a German WT design, being awkward in L:W, though given schachtellaufwerk for better distribution of weight. A problem for the vehicle was its uncommonly high silhouette, especially with the "wings" upright, but the ach ach was hard to conceal even when emplaced.
Since many allied bombing attacks targeted rail yards and manufacturing centers reached by rail, a large number of FlaK weapons was made rail mobile, eliminating the need for a specialized carrier chassis within the Reich.
Reference the picture at 21:20. This clearly shows the original 8.8cmFlaK36.
"Hans, why we're not moving?"
"Commandant, we're out of fuel."
"Then where is the logistics truck?”
"They're out of fuel too."
Rommel had that problem all the time ...
Click bait containing a lot of fanciful nonsense.
How?
good video. How ‘bout: top 6 tanks that should have been in War Thunder instead of current tank in game?
Bro, where did you get that video 4:24?
I just came across a Grille 10 in my basement, wondering how im goin to paint it
If the Germans had fought only at night, how things might have changed
Yep, could have shaved years off the war.
The night vision equiptment wasnt good enough. Hense the lack of adoption by their armed forces. Saying "if only they.. " is a rediculous thing to keep saying. Read up about the war more and you will realise there were many limitations and desperate shortages that prevented Germany ever winning. If germany built a million V rockets they might have won but they couldnt and didnt. Its simply pointless to say anything like this.
Germany also would not have been ALLOWED to fight only at night. As soon as you realise your enemy has an advantage at night you would only fight in the daytime and at night you would retreat to defensive positions surrounded by every mine and gun you had and every light you could create thus negating the IR the germans had.
The night vision the germans created was at best good for small suprise operations where your foe couldnt quickly light up the battlefield with flares. They simply couldnt produce enough to do anything else either.
Its a bit of a stupid statement to be fair.
If the Germans had fought only at night.
Simply you have a small country that was handicapped from the start. What Germany accomplished in a short amount of time was nothing less than amazing. German went from Toy tanks to tanks that simply annihilated all but the heaviest Russian tanks ( Jets, long range rockets, machine guns ect...) that came too late to the war. Like any country facing such overwhelming odds, limited resources and industry Germany did well for the limitations they had.
Agreed. What they accomplished was out of all proportion to what they should have done on paper as it were but this doesnt change the fact they faced overwhelming odds and were simply unable to produce enough war material or men to win. In the end its a simple matter really. It doesnt take much reading to realise this fact. These types of video i fear are made by those who havent really read up enough and base their theory on a computer game with tanks in it or a war game that bears very little similarity to the actual events. My compliments on a well written answer. Covers it all clearly and concisely.
Interesting take, thanks for that.
I just want to help out with the German pronunciation here; "Leicht" means light and it's pronounced like "laysht" or as in Lies with an added "sht" at the end.
The Krupp Zugführerwagen looks a lot like the Russian/Soviet BT/Christie tanks that they experimented with and led to the development of the BT-series of tanks that later inspired the A-32 and A-34 prototypes that led to the T-34.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_tank#/media/File:Medium_tank_A-32.jpg
its pronounced lygt. Ch is a hard something stuck in your throat g
Good job, but as you stated it all came down to lack of oil.
18:15 The gun was an adaptation of the 75mm. L.43 KwK.40 used on the Pz.IV.F2 and used the same ammunition.
The 50mm. L.60 KwK.39 / PaK.38 had the following performance:
APCBC-HE PzGr.39 = Up to 99mm. RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres.
APCR PzGr.40/1 = Up to 141mm. RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres.
APCR PzGr.40/2 = Up to 165mm. RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres.
After 1942, tungsten for APCR ammunition was in extremely limited supply, so the 50mm. L.60 would have been restricted to using APCBC-HE PzGr.39 ammunition, giving it a lacklustre performance against Allied tanks.
Germany lost, cause they run out of fuel?
Little oversimplicated I would say....
The Pz.II.F. & G had 35mm. of armour, so 30mm. is a reduction, not an increase.
The Pz.II.G was armed with the French 37mm. L.33 KwK.38(f) tank gun and had no machine guns, as a consequence of the installation.
VK1602 is one I think that could of done something good for the Reich. A light mini Panther with a 5cm L/60. Why? It was light weight, meaning lower fuel consumption needs, could cross far more bridges across Europe. It had wide tracks so light weight combined with displacement meant it could cross control VERY WELL. And it had 50mm of sloped armor, which would of made it studier at least on paper than late war Panzer IV Medium tanks. Combine that with the fact the 5cm L/60 could handle most allied and soviet armor even up to the end of the war from modest ranges, and could handle any tank in the war from the flanks/rear including the heaviest tanks which saw action.
Well with all those factors combined, it could of been a good all around vehicle. Definitely if combined arms mobility warfare was practiced properly again...... yes I'm looking at how German Army somehow forgot how to fight a war as the war went on and on. Then again material reasons were partly responsible. Kinda hard when you don't have enough artillery, anti tank guns and anti aircraft guns for how massive the German Army grew between 1942-1944. Yes the German Army was massive even before their front collapsed in 44. But they badly lacked equipment. They were starting to see the situation that Italian and Romanians had.
11:48 btw that vehicle there is a GREAT vehicle on War Thunder. You can even kill MBTs with it when flanking. It has the nickname of the Baby Tiger, or Tini Tiger. It is a lot of fun in short if you can get your hands on the vehicle in the game.
Strange how they put the Luchs light recce tank into production and neglected to do the same with the Leopard another light recon tank and superior in fire power [ a mini Panther in fact . ]
Can you put together a video of ww2 equipment used in other wars after ww2
The best use of panzer 1, 2 and 38t would be as indirect weapon carriers. Convert salvaged battlefield wrecks and existing operational tanks, not new production. The panzer 1& 2 lines needed to be terminated. Mostly 8cm &12cm mortars and leichtes infantanterie geschuzten. Using the 1942 heavy weapons brigade organization, so these weapons would be in addition to what was already issued.
Guderian would have thrown a fit until you gave him back 1 for 1 15cm and 10.5 cm howitzer carriers. Paulus would have sighed some relief as he saw infantry support weapons being mechanized. Perhaps even panzer 2s and 38ts being converted to turretless stugs like the Italian Semovente with angled upper and lower glacis (like the vk 1602) and the 7.5cm infanteriegeschütz for its smaller 1 piece ammo for faster rate of fire and more ammo capacity.
But still it would have made 0 difference. Fewer horse drawn crew served weapons would have freed up horses and men for supply columns. For an increase in demand for supplies and fuel. They still would have only made it 600-700 kilometers before supply lines were stretched to maximum capacity. Maybe more infantry would have survived to this point. But same outcome of the war.
Given the threat ; PANZER JAGGER where more desperately needed. Mortar carriers are critical too but a 3 ton Zugkraftwagen could mount such a weapon in back with 1/2 dozen crew towing a ammo trailer...plus 1/2 in bolt on armor all way round. WORKS AT A PINCH AND GOOD ENOUGH.
The 37mm gun was outdated as a tanks main armament by 1940, the German anti-tank crews who used the 37mm anti-tank gun, upon which the tank gun was based, referred to it as” Hitler’s door knocker” due to its inability to actually penetrate many of the tanks used by the Western allies at the start of W.W.II.
VK-1602 design was developed through 1941/42 ; B-4 being cancelled mid war AS NOT NEEDED. It had 3.1m wide chassis that was 4.75 m long. This "LEOPARD" tank had an 'up armoured' "PUMA" turret bringing the height to 2.6m and mass to 21 ton. That puts it squarely in the region as the Panzer III medium tank , a tank that was mass produced through 1943 and then as assault gun through the rest of the war.
In comparison with Pz-III , the big difference would be 50mm sloped frontal and 30mm sloped side armor and turret , which Pz III could only dream about!!!!!. Further the larger Pz-III HL120 engine, would bring the chassis length to 5.4m and its mass too over 23 tons.....same region as Pz-III.
However that also means less engine power [300hp vs 550hp] and lower 'Power to weight ratio.' ...which drops the notional 'top speed' from 60 to ~48 kph...but still better than Panzer III tank/STuG-III.
I know ! Wolfgang Siebt said ; " We just needed more firepower " !
Why do you say lichttraktor instead of leichttraktor? - when E is before I in german then pronounce the wowels in the sequence they are placed in!
The Germans' biggest problem wasn't just fuel, it was lack of manufacturing capacity. 800 Luchs were ordered and there was talk of putting 50mm guns on them, but lack of capacity meant the factory concentrated on Panthers and only 100 Luchs were made. In reality light tanks would have fallen victim to air attack, artillery and allied tanks too easily, so they would never have been useful except for reconnaissance.
If you were going to produce any of these vehicles, what vehicles were you not going to make? The materials to make them must come from someplace.
Not one soviet produced tank had a 75mm gun. The first tank would would have been destroyed by small arms fire and grenades
You should not forget, that based on the restrictions of the Versailles treaty, Germany was not allowed to produce any tanks! The Reichswehr was developing tanks in secret together with Russia before 1933, and only after Hitler became Reichskanzler in 1933, Germany began openly to ignore the Versailles treaty, also in responce to USA, UK and France, whom did not follow the treaties obligations themselfs. E.g. the reduction of navies postulated in the treaty was only performed by Germany, all others increased their armament.
I should do that be for Britain , USSR and China too
Industrial capacity and a lack of vital raw materials were the real limiting factors for the Nazi war machine. Not forgetting very poorly organised logistical support. Something that is quite hard to believe given the German mentality, and the fact their supply lines were becoming shorter and shorter as they retreated back to Germany.
German units fought each other for spare parts at railheads and depots. Never an issue for US Lee or Sherman tanks, despite support needing to cross the Atlantic. More different types of German AFV's at the front would have required even more logistical backup. The three age old key factors to successfully waging war Logistics, logistics and logistics.
In modern technological warfare best remembered as:
Logistics - secured supplies of excess components and raw materials to manufacturing sites.
Logistics - rapid/efficient use of those materials. Design - ease of production/use and repair to meet (or better, to exceed) demand.
Logistics - rapid and flexible transport of sufficient quantities to front line units. Continued replenishment available as required.
Russian calibre was 76.2mm not 75mm
I am amazed that the Sherman was never converted into a STUG type tank destroyer. With a long barrel HV 75mm gun it would have been formidable!
StuG III was defence weapon and little use in attack. Sherman was good on offence with good reliability. Reversing that role into assault gun was waste of good industry and crews.
It was not as useful to an army that was not on the defensive. The stug was really a stop gap vehicle, a compromise to gain an anti tank weapon quickly. It was not as versatile as a turreted tank in actuallity. Sure in a computer game it seems great but these games really dont reflect reality. Not as much as people seem to think anyway.
It did sport a bigger gun and good frontal armour for its size but that wont help if your enemy is to your side even if they have a small AT gun.
The allies simply didnt need this type of gun..
Im not sure it would be that great either. You would still have the higher profile of the body, the engine and transmission of the sherman made it a tall tank, thus eliminating one of the positive features of the stug, and the nearest gun to the stug 3's 75mmL/48 the allies had would be the 76mm M1 or the british 17 pounder 3inch (76mm)
Both of which were already on turrets. The only reason youd want it ina tank like the stug would be the low profile and be able to hide it.
Bit pointless when youre attacking accross open ground.
What the Germans used were their 88 mm anti-tank artillery and their Tank destroyers. These were much cheaper and easier to make.
Their heavy tanks were too few to make any difference as many broke down due to mechanical designs.
Anyway, the Allied air superiority neutralized their individualized superiority. Heavy bombers would have destroyed mass formations of German tanks at Normandy.
Remember this, the Germans at the start of the War, used tanks as part of their offensives.
From 1943 on, the Germans used their tanks as defense.
This is less a question on what tanks they should’ve built and more about the ones they shouldn’t have built. The Tigers, Elephant and Maus were a waste of time and resources that could’ve gone into more medium tanks and tank destroyers.
The treaty of Versailles reduced the German ability to (re)build their army, navy and airforce, reducing Germany to a much poorer country, forcing them to develop in secret and make cutting decisions. It also forced them into WW2 perhaps.
One option would perhaps have been diesel engines for the tanks, developing long-range bombers for the Eastern front and not indulging in silly and too-many projects for (superheavy) weapons. Taking out the radar and airfields of the British, not attacking Leningrad and going for the Arabic and Libian oilfields? Building more submarines instead of battleships?
The tanks you are suggesting would not have many any difference.
Note resting material but you need to get a lo of your facts aligned: ex.: Low Countries, also now know as Benelux are Belgium, Holland and Luxemburg. They were the gateway to France in 1940. Denmark a Norway are about as related to the Low Countries as Estonia.
Leichttraktor: you pronounced ‘chttraktor‘ quite well, however, German ‘ei‘ is similar to the i in‘ light‘ (not heavy). There‘s also a noun‘ Licht‘; that‘s what you said.
Research done in World of Tanks? Please, at least try to get the German right. E.g. Zugfuhrer means Command tank. This Pz was only armed for last ditch self defence. They eventually had this role done by old Pz.1 with a fixed superstructure. This is no serious article. Very good rare pictures of your 6 subjects though. Pity of the mix of unrelated footitsch between them.
There is no footage of these tanks , and the zugfuher wagon was listed as an experimental export medium tank. It would been than the Pz1 command variant, which was already obsolete by 1941. As the allied command tanks were much larger and had anti-tank guns.
@@jmantime Allied command tanks were sometimes on light tank chassis, quite a common one in British service being based on a turretless M5.
He also makes other small mistakes, such as saying denmark is part of the low countries. And theres also a bunch of weird/bad sentence structures. For example: "the czech 35 and 38t" this of course doesnt really make sense seeing as the t in 38t stands for german word for czech. The fact the starts with calling the panzer 1 the panzerkampfwagen 1 and then says panzer 2. If you use the full word for the 1st one also use the full word for the 2nd one
Grilli 10? Seriously? You have all the stats in front of you and research materials, and yet you still managed spell it wrong? It's Grille ('grill ,eh), not Grilli. Grillis don't exist. Never did.
You missed out a somewhat important one the Panzer 38(t) n.A.
this was a design put forward as a competitor to the Luchs but could be armed with a 5cm L/60 gun, it was simpler to produce, had just as good armour and speed, and was more reliable. hell the entire reason the luchs was canceled after 100 vehicles was reliability issues (they orginally wanted atleast 500). it iwas also closer to existing designs and thus would have been quicker to put into production.
it wouldn't have changed the war, but it would have been better than what the Germans actually did (the failed luchs, and then no real replacement)
As for the vehicles in the video, a leichtraktor variant instead of the panzer I and II, and the Zugfuhrerwagen (or a variant thereof) instead of the panzer III and IV are the most important vehicles. the Zugfuhrerwagen is faster, just as well armed and better armoured than the Pz III and IV at the start of the war, and was simpler to produce and was lighter and thus could be used on more bridges and terrain (the result of being a 4 man tank instead of a 5 man tank, and with hindsight we know the 5th man is unnecessary) and could do the jobs of both. haveing only 2 production tanks instead of 4 would have simplified and thus accelerated production and supply and thus not only would they have had better tanks at the beginning of the war but they would have had more of them.
also haveing future tanks based of the 4-man crew layout of the Zugfuhrerwagen would have also resulted in a better panther equivalent (saveing weight and space) and thus probably an earlier panther.
now you mention this probably wouldn't have been enough to change the war, which is probably right. however more tanks and better tanks in poland-france, means fewer loses (more guns shooting for longer means fewer enemy guns shooting back, etc) meaning more (and better) tanks and experiance for fighting the USSR, meaning more success in 1941, meaning less soviets in the counter offensive. meaning further into the USSR with more men and machines in 1942, meaning closer to the oil fields and thus a higher chance of securing the needed oil and crippling the USSR in 1942 (the soviets can't fight without oil either, and lendlease simply wasn't good enough to meet the oil demand). While no means certain, i would say there is atleast a small chance of changeing the outcome of the war, atleast as far as making the soviets a non-player at the end of the war (i don't think germany could beat the USA-UK alliance, due to the A-bomb if nothing else)
None of these would have made any difference. The problem is that the Germans kept cranking out a new unproven design again and again. They should have stuck with the Panzer IV. The Tiger I/II and Panther were big mistakes that just ate up already scarce time, money and resources. Both were known for being horribly unreliable. A updated Panzer IV with better armor and gun would have made a big difference and could have prolonged the war by a year or even two. I don't know if it would have led to an Axis victory but it would have made life harder for the Allies. Impressive as the Tiger was, it was a mistake still. Its entire chassis and frame couldn't work with a wimpy transmission and incredibly heavy turret. Those two issues basically guaranteed that it would be unreliable and a waste of everything: fuel, time, material, money, manpower. The Tiger I tank was one of the biggest blunders the Germans ever made.
They did up gun the Panzer 4 it proved to be the equal of Allied tanks, not a good thing when you are heavily outnumbered.
What Germany needed was the original Panther before it was up armored
The added weight of the armor is what caused the mechanical unreliability
The only strategic victories the Germans won were with Pz IIIs and IVs. But even if they had not diverted scarce resources to complex systems like the Tigers and Panthers, they still didn't have the fuel or a competent logistics train train.
@@sulate1 None of the WALLIES could have done better by themselves either.
I like the Neubaufahrzeugs
These could have been useful, until someone shot at them I suppose.
The main reason these tanks were not produced is because Germany had issues with resources, fuel, manpower, and manufacturing. There was no reason to produce these tanks because they already had vehicles that fulfilled these roles that were better or comparable in production and any changes would have disrupted production lines. As far as equipping allies this was not Hitlers policy and this did not change till it was too late in the war.
How much fuel do you think the Wehrmacht consumed each week.
Not to mention horse fodder, which took up huge amounts of rolling stock volume.
@@sulate1 unfortunately for them they had little choice as it was NEVER motor vehicle only but ALWAYS going to be motor & wagon.
Please replace your battery in your fire alarm.
0:55 Its the Toaster!! .... when I play this tank in World of Tanks Blitz, I always ask everyone before battle if they would like some toast... or some poptarts.
Those Leopards ( 8:35 ) would have been the pestiest tanks ever. They sure are on WoTB... little snots.. running around shooting other tanks in the butt... LOL
VK 16.02 or Leopard.. The booty hunter.. Only slapping booties.. LMAO
The Leichttraktor was actually a collaboration between Sweden and Germany.
Wrong tank
In 1940 the 37mm AT gun could not penetrate the British Matilda II or most french tanks. The 2pdr (40mm) could destroy *all* German armour
did they win....i thought they lost?
@@paullakowski2509 superior tactics don't alter facts
None of these would have been any use whatsoever, except the SP 88mm Flak (Grille)
Leichttraktor and the early Pz3 could have increased the power of German Panzer Divisions in 1939-1940. The 50mm Pz2 would have been a fairly cheap modification that could have a decent effect on 1941-1942. The half-track TD would be the only thing capable of dealing with Soviet heavy tanks in Barbarossa. All of these vehicles could have been useful, though would not change the outcome of the war. The only one I don’t see having an effect is the Leopard.
Grille (not Grilli) 10 was not a tank, but a kind of selfpropelled AT-gun. Used as a tank, it would fail terrible in combat. On the western front after D-Day the Germans lacked of small AA-guns against the strafing fighter-bombers. So, this vehicle would have been useful with 3 cm quadruple AA-gun, with four MK 108 for example.
They modified their smaller tanks making them mobile artillery.
My money would have been on the VK1602...a.k.a. The 'Baby Panther' nee Leopard.
At the typical western European combat ranges, the 5cm L60 was still plenty lethal (especially for flank shots). And, it's compact design would have worked well with typical narrow urban streets (not to mention mobility in forests). For combat recon, it would eaten M3 / M5 Stuarts for breakfast/lunch/dinner...
As for export, it was light-years better than 90% of the trash tanks the Italians/Romanians/Hungarians were using.
P.S. -- I agree concerning choice #3 (the Krupp experimental); if the Italians had gotten off their high horse (and the Germans had been a bit more reasonable), this tank would have gone a loooong way to winning North Africa by 1942 (especially if the 45mm had used). As for the Hungarians and Romanians...they would have thought the Krupp was the greatest thing since butterbrot & vodka. 😉
being light and fast it would have also had better deployability and reliability. as for being better than italian tanks, well yes and no, the italian contemporary to the leopard was the P43bis which the germans considered to be just as good (on paper) as the panther.
as for the Krupp experiemntal, its got the same armour and firepower as the main italian tanks and its not mutch faster, its adavantge would be the extra 5-6 years of production. also the italians asked the germans for tanks and even paid for some two divisions worth. but they were never delivered. don't blame the italians, blame the germans for being bad business partners, hell the germans gave the soviets a few panzer iiis when they asked for some before 1941 but they never did the same for the italians despite the italians actually paying for them...
Maybe entwicklung series can helping german for ww2
Lightly armored tanks were not what the German army wanted. They could be easily defeated by anti-tank rifles etc. The need to protect experienced well-trained tank crews was more important. The German Army then up shielded Panzer 4;s and then began producing 5's and 6's
i am pretty sure the swiss at gun was 24mm not 25mm
How and where were they supposed to make all these things? The Germans had too many variants as it was, they needed less types not more 🙄🙄🙄
Interesting, but repetitive. Also, if you're going to use German words, learn how to pronounce them....
These videos are great, but my main complain would be german or foreign pronunciations. I would suggest typing those into google translate and clicking voice command in order to hear them and understand as good as possible.
I think, mass producing 6 most tank/tank destroyer types would be just resorce waste. If they produce those, than this minds less Pz IV, Panther, Tiger tanks, and tank destroyers where produced.
And on secund thouth, if a prototype is not produced, that minds, it has serious flaws, what needs years to be eliminated.
There was two things that Germany did't had enough, resorces, and time.
It didn't matter what kind or how many tanks the Germans did or didn't build. Because they didn't have enough fuel too field them all. In fact most German tanks were destroyed by their own crew. And let's not forget that fuel shortage also effected there air force. Which lead to many of there most of the tome immobile tanks to be destroyed by the air. The Battle of the bulge it a good example of all of said points above. There plan was dependent on taking the allies fuel while the weather was too bad for aircraft. Then the weather turned before they got said fuel. They didn't have enough fuel to make back with their tanks. So they destroyed many of them themselves.
Why bother when a lot of successful variants were based on the panzer 3 and panzer 4 chassis ? You also do not take into account how the war changed for Germany. In the first half they were fighting an offensive war. In the second half they were fighting a defensive war. Another thing you do not think of is the holy trinity of tank design speed, armour and firepower and where you compromise to achieve the best result for the role of the vehicle you are designing.
Man you gotta check your sources, Japan never baught a me163 they got blue prints and tried to make somthing different
(Re Do)
Tank v tank warfare is attrition warfare.
Where was the steel and fuel coming from? Germany had to import both. And their allies were buying from the same sources.
Light vehicles as you propose are very vulnerable to artillery, the great killer of tanks. Open top vehicles have great vulnerabilities to their crews as well they weapon and drive systems to artillery.
The Litchttraktor armour was far to thin to resist even 303 AP rounds so .50cal P40 guns and Hurricane 20mm light cannon would have eaten it alive
aww bless so germany did build cute tanks
Its terms of getting tanks to Japan during WWII. Good luck shipping them when you don't control the Suez Canal or Strait of Gibraltar. Mix in their focus needed to disrupt allied shipping, which only slowed the inevitable defeat. The germans would of never been able to support japan with any form of armour because transport by submarine would of been the only safe way to do it, and those arent being pulled from combat just to transport cargo. Tiger 131 is an example of that if I'm not mistaken, bought buy the Japanese, commandeered by the Germanys to continue the fight in Europe.
I also beleive the route Germany took tank was still the wisest choice. As likely stated somewhere converting medium, light and heavy tanks chassis i to classmates doenst change the tooling and manufacturing needs and cuts costs by removing the turret.
if they had the armor they could have taken Stalingrad and the oil fields!!! then again if they bypassed Stalingrad took the oilf fields then swung back tings might have turned out different too!!!
The toaster was a strange tank
At the start of ww2 Germany did not have the best tanks... they were the only ones who knew how to properly use tanks at the start... and thier communications within the tanks were the best so that they could out maneuver thier opponents
Slightly flawed logic. The Germans had perfectly good tank designs throughout the war - it was their inability to produce them that was the problem. Having another design that you COULD build doesn't mean you CAN build it, because you don't have the factories/steel/rubber/oil to do it. The best of these designs might have been VK1601, but what was the point in building it when you could build a Panzer IV instead? The half track was cancelled because it was pointless - just build a tank instead - and the reason the two survived for a year in North Africa was not that they were a wonder weapon, it's just that they didn't see frontline use because what do you do with just two of them, with no spares? Grilli is a completely dumb idea - take an anti-aircraft gun that you can tow with a truck and make it less mobile by putting it on a massively expensive tank chassis with a known reliability issue.
Honestly, these are all interesting designs and it would be good to know more about them e.g. what the trials showed and why they weren't selected for mass production. Would happily re-watch the video then.
Croatia and Hungary weren't German puppets.